DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 1/30/2026.
Claims 15-16 are previously cancelled.
Claims 1-14, 17-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice”, and “This characterization is overly reductive and misstates the focus of the claims. The claims are not directed merely to providing value or exchanging consideration. Instead, the claims are directed to a specific computer-implemented mechanism for controlling, tracking, and enforcing NIL-based affiliations between user transactions and athlete-specific digital assets, including the creation of a relational database structure that uniquely binds NIL identifiers to specific athletes. The claims also provide for transaction-level affiliation logic that links present or future transactions to specific NIL identifiers, along with post-transaction enforcement rules governing when and how NIL benefits may be displayed or accessed, and access-control and display- prevention mechanisms that technically restrict use of NIL content unless a qualifying transaction has occurred.” (response at 7-8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the transaction itself is abstract, as is the controlling tracking and enforcing of the rights to the digital assets as fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B))
Applicant further argues “The Applicant submits that transaction-bound NIL enforcement is a practical application. The claims require that: a user selects a specific NIL identifier; the identifier is affiliated with a specific present or future transaction; completion of that transaction triggers both athlete compensation and user entitlement; and NIL benefits are technically restricted unless and until the transaction criteria are satisfied.” And “The prevention of unauthorized display is a technical access-control function, not a mental step or economic abstraction. It constrains how the user interface operates at the system level.” (response at 8 and 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the prevention of unauthorized display until criteria is satisfied represents mere instruction to apply an expectation to a computer environment specifically using the computer to perform an existing process. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
Applicant further argues that the claims impose system level controls that integrate the claims onto a concrete application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees the system level controls amount to mere instruction to apply an expectation to a computer environment specifically using the computer to perform an existing process. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s 101 arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, and 17 are directed to a method, and system.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “providing a user with a proprietary asset” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices and commercia and legal interaction” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for providing a user with a proprietary asset corresponding to a name, image or likeness (NIL) of a college athlete, comprising:
generating, using a processor, a relational database comprising a table wherein each row in the table is recordable with a unique ID comprising a key, wherein columns of the table hold attributes of data with each record in the table having a value for each attribute among the attributes to facilitate relationships among data points, the relational database associating in the table at least one NIL with at least one college athlete, and identifying the at least one NIL with at least one NIL identifier (NIL ID) unique to the at least one college athlete;
allowing, using a processor, a user through a user interface to select the at least one NIL ID to affiliate with at least one present transaction or at least one future transaction, wherein the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction when completed is credited to the selected at least one NIL ID so that the at least one college athlete associated with the at least one NIL ID receives something of value from or associated with the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction upon or after completion of the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction by the user; and
as a result of the completion of the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction by the user, using a processor, permitting the user to receive an NIL benefit from the at least one college athlete, the NIL benefit including at least one of: a non-fungible token image or likeness of the at least one college athlete, a digital image or likeness of the at least one college athlete, a communication from or on behalf of the at least one college athlete, a social media post by the at least one college athlete, an autograph, clothing, a discount on the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction, or a social media post by or on behalf of the at least one college athlete associated with the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “…using a processor…”, “…digital…”,” “a relational database comprising…” “…through a user interface …” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of banknote suspension and reinstatement.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of “providing a user with a proprietary asset”, Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein … is operable to track a total number of NIL transactions and/or NIL benefits based on a cumulative number or value of the NIL transactions, wherein the NIL transactions comprise the at least one present transaction and/or the at least one future transaction.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “the relational database” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 3 recites “… about the at least one college athlete, the …content including a NIL associated with the at least one college athlete.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “wherein the user interface provides at least one screen operable to display electronic content… electronic” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the …, allows the user to affiliate the at least one NIL identifier with the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…user interface graphically displays an object that when selected by the user …” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the object is displayed in the … in a shape of a NIL representative of the at least one college athlete.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…user interface…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements “wherein the object occupies a user- specified location on a screen of the user interface and/or occupies a user specified area of the user interface.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the NIL benefit comprising at least one of the …image of the athlete or the likeness of the at least one college athlete is displayable on ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…digital… a lock screen of the user interface…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “further comprising preventing a display of the at least one of the digital image of the at least one college athlete or the likeness of the at least one college athlete on any screen of the user interface without the NIL benefit” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Specifically, the claim does not provide technical details regarding how the “preventing a display of the at least one of the digital image … on any screen of the user interface without the NIL benefit” is performed. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising facilitating the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction with a …displayed menu that respectively displays the at least one NIL identifier in association with one or more menu items in the … displayed menu.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…graphically…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising authorizing at least one NIL identifier among a plurality of NIL identifiers in the relational ...” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…database to be stored in a memory accessible by a mobile app associated with the user, wherein the mobile app provides the user interface” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the communication from or on behalf of the at least one college athlete comprises a pre-determined and pre-recorded message from the at least one college athlete.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of “natural language processing tools” “wherein the rational database comprises a dual-stack architecture that integrates the relational database with a blockchain does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of “wherein the object occupies a user-specified location on a screen of the user interface.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “wherein the object occupies a user specified area of the user interface” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the at least one present transaction or the at least one future transaction comprises a … transaction associated with a credit card.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…blockchain-based electronic…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the credit card transaction includes or results in a cash rebate to the credit card user that the credit card user can assign to the at least one college athlete or a plurality of college athletes including the at least one college athlete.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the assignment of the cash rebate to the at least one college athlete is equal or preset.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites “where the assignment of the cash rebate to the at least one college athlete is unequal with a division of proceeds selected by the user of the credit card through ...” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…the user interface” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the NIL benefit received by the user is provided to the user on a transaction-by-transaction” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the NIL benefit is based on a cumulative value of transactions without a limitation as to time basis” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the NIL benefit is based on a cumulative value of transactions so long as the at least one NIL transaction takes place during one or more prescribed periods.”
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Segal (US 2021/0350475 A1) Teaches system for team participant sponsorship.
Andon (US 2020/0184547 A1). Teaches event based distribution of cryptographically secured digital assets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 7, 2026