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 16 June 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the identification of the abstract idea is insufficient because a single abstract idea was not identified or that multiple abstract ideas were identified and only one was given an explanation. The single abstract 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 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). Applicant argues the rejection fails to show the claims recite the identified abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees because on pages 3-4 of the Final the rejection clearly identifies the claim language that recites the alleged abstract idea. Applicant argues the identification of multiple abstract ideas is procedurally deficient for lack of clarity and specificity. The MPEP at 2106.04 states “In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B (if necessary) rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.” The rejection identifies a single concept, that of using rules to manage access to digital content, and the claim language directed to the recitation of the abstract concept is identified. Despite the Applicant’s arguments, the target is not moving and has not changed for multiple actions, which should easily provide a practitioner clear and adequate notice of the 101 analysis and rejection. Applicant argues the rejection does not establish the concepts or the identified claim language as abstract concepts. The Examiner disagrees because the claim language has been identified as well as the abstract concept examples identified in the MPEP that closely resemble the claim language concept.
Applicant argues that since a singular abstract idea was not identified, the prong two analysis was insufficient and forecloses the additional elements analysis. As stated above, the single abstract concept was using rules to manage access to digital content, as previously stated in multiple actions, and was adequate to perform the step 2A prong two analysis, which was provided on page 4 of the Final rejection.
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. 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, permitting the acquisition of the collectible digital asset and upon determination that the one or more conditions are not fulfilled, preventing the acquisition of the collectible digital asset, and upon determination that the fist condition is not fulfilled, effectuating presentation of an interface. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), 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 ‘Apply it’ the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The element of providing access to the digital platform is an example mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The element of providing access to the digital platform is an example mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f).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
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
Prosecution Insights