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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the rejection fails to show the claims recite an abstract idea specifically that the OA does not identify a single abstract idea. The Applicant misstates the MPEP and the approach with multiple exceptions, an examiner should only select one of the exceptions when the exceptions are distinct from each other such as an abstract idea and a law of nature and not selecting only one abstract idea. The MPEP further states that if multiple abstract idea are identified, then all should be included in the analysis and if possible consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea. Here, the examiner has considered the abstract ideas to be grouped under a single abstract idea of using rules to manage access to digital content. Applicant further argues that the Office does not provide separate analysis for each of the identified concepts on pages 11-12, but the Examiner disagrees because the single concept of using rules to manage access to digital content has been identified and separate analysis has been provided on pages 3-4 of the Non-final rejection for each of the categories, fundamental economic practice (purchasing the right to use content is similar to a purchase transaction which is a fundamental economic practice, see similar concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) including local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, rules for conducting a wagering game) and commercial interactions (agreements in the form of contracts such as a smart contract that the claims are essentially claiming, sales activities and business relations are similar to managing access to content based on a set of rules, see similar concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Ultramercial using advertising as an exchange or currency, a transaction performance guaranty). Notably, the Applicant fails to provide substantive arguments to the rejection and only provides arguments directed to procedural disagreements.
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 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 11 is directed to a “managing digital asset acquisition based on analysis of a decentralized ledger to determiner ownership of a specialized digital asset that represents an agreement”. Claim 11 is directed to the concept of “using rules to manage access to digital content” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (purchasing the right to use content is similar to a purchase transaction which is a fundamental economic practice, see similar concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) including local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, rules for conducting a wagering game) and commercial interactions (agreements in the form of contracts such as a smart contract that the claims are essentially claiming, sales activities and business relations are similar to managing access to content based on a set of rules, see similar concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Ultramercial using advertising as an exchange or currency, a transaction performance guaranty)” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 11 recites receiving an indication that a user is requesting acquisition of a collectible digital asset, analyze the ledger to determine whether one or more conditions are fulfilled, upon determination that the one or more conditions are fulfilled, transmitting an authorization indication or upon determination that the one or more conditions are not fulfilled, transmitting a prevention indication or upon determination that the first condition is not fulfilled, effectuating presentation of an interface. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as one or more processors, a decentralized ledger, a digital asset distribution platform, a digital wallet 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). 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. implement) the acts of using rules to manage access to digital content.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to manage access to digital content using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2, 6-10, 12, and 16-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims 2, 12, 10, 20, 7-8, and 17-18 further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims. Additionally, the extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of claims 6 and 16 receiving an acceptance do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Belleville US 2019/0073665 Prakask US 2018/0330342.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692