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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 05/21/2025. Per preliminary amendments, claims 1-14 are cancelled. New claims 15-30 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/018,057 claims priority to PCT/EP2021/087527 filed 12/23/2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15, 21, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 15, 21, and 24 recite "wherein the registration identifier is in the blockchain network a globally unique identifier of the registration process", and should recite ".... the blockchain network of a globally....". Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 15-30 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Examiner Note: The permissioned blockchain is a network containing different computers and therefore has structure). (Step 1: YES).
Claims 15, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and system for registering a digital medium on a permissioned blockchain using a smart contract and content identifier’s. For Claims 15, 21, and 24, the limitations of (Claim 15 being representative):
receiving, […], a […] medium from a medium provider and an identifier of the medium provider, wherein the […] medium comprises at least one of: a […] picture, or […] audio, […],
executing, […], a […] contract to register the […] medium,
verifying, […], the identifier of the medium provider using the […] contract,
determining, […], a content identifier of the […] medium using the […] contract, wherein the […] contract runs a content identification on the […] medium to identify the content identifier and wherein the content identifier is an identifier that uniquely identifies a content of the […] medium,
generating, […], a registration identifier corresponding to the […] medium using the […] contract, wherein the registration identifier is […] a globally unique identifier of the registration process,
storing, […], the registration identifier […], and
providing, […], the registration identifier and the content identifier […], as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a permissioned blockchain network, peer, digital medium, database, digital video, and a smart contract, the claimed invention amounts to a commercial or legal interactions. For example, but for the permissioned blockchain network, peer, digital medium, database, digital video, and a smart contract, this claim encompasses receiving data and identification of where the data is received from, execution of a contract to register the data, verification of an identifier using the contract, determining a content identifier of the data using the contract to uniquely identify the content, generating a registration identifier of the data using the contract, storing the registration identifier, and providing the registration and content identifier, based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 15, 21 and 24 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 15, 21, and 24 recite the additional elements of at least one peer of a permissioned blockchain network (Claim 15, 21, and 24), a peer (Claims 15, 21, and 24), a digital [medium] (Claims 15, 21, and 24), a database (Claims 15, 21, and 24), digital video (Claims 15, 21, and 24), and a smart [contract] (Claims 15, 21, and 24), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 15, 21, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements at least one peer of a permissioned blockchain network (Claim 15, 21, and 24), a peer (Claims 15, 21, and 24), a digital [medium] (Claims 15, 21, and 24), a database (Claims 15, 21, and 24), digital video (Claims 15, 21, and 24), and a smart [contract] (Claims 15, 21, and 24), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more’). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 15, 21, and 24 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 16-20, 22-23, and 25-30 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 16-18, 23, 25-27 merely describe(s) the content identifier and its association. Claim(s) 19 merely describes the result of registering. Claim(s) 20, and 22 merely describes analyzing and providing data. Claim(s) 28-30 merely describe the registration identifier.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 include the additional elements of a database, permissioned blockchain network, peer, and digital [medium]. The database, permissioned blockchain network, peer, and digital [medium] also recited in the independent claims do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore claims 16-20, 22-23, and 25-30 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
The cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of “the rejection identifier is in the blockchain network a globally unique identifier of the registration process”, in combination with the other claim limitations. After conducting an updated search, the closest art comprises:
Sado, (US 20230169498 A1), which discloses methods for transferring digital assets using proof-of-sound. Content consumers may verify their presence at an event/drop using various mechanisms including audio recording, sensor data, data from other devices, and user interactions. Smart contracts may be deployed to a blockchain to mint NFTs for verified content consumers.
Therefore, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed render claim 15, 21, and 24 distinguishable from the prior art. Claims 16-20, 22-23, and 25-30 are also distinguishable from the prior art due to their dependencies on Claims 15, 21, and 24.
A Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant disagrees that the claimed subject-matter would be nothing more than managing personal behavior of interactions between people. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at least recite receiving a medium, executing a contract to register the medium, verifying the identifier of the medium using the contract, determining a content identifier of the medium using the contract where the contract has a content identification on the medium to identify the content identifier and the content identifier is an identifier that uniquely identifies a content of the medium, generating a registration identifier corresponding to the medium using the contract where the registration identifier is a globally unique identifier of the registration process, storing the registration identifier, and providing the registration identifier and content identifier which fall within “agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” and/or “social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions” which is included in “managing personal behavior...” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a}(2)(II)(C). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the applicant has not explained why the claimed subject matter does not fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Applicant argues that the at least one peer, which executes the smart contract to run a content identification on the digital medium to identify the content identifier significantly improves security and reliability of the registration process for the digital medium using the permissioned blockchain network. This way, the secure entities of the blockchain network themselves, i.e., the at least one peer, are able to generate the content identifier that uniquely identifies the content of the digital medium. Further arguing that the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application of the permissioned blockchain network including at least one peer, a medium provider, and a database, in that in particular security and reliability of the registering of a digital medium can be improved. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed previously in the Final Office Action, and above, the additional elements were found to be mere instruction to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). The blockchain network, smart contract, digital medium, peer and database are considered mere tools to implement an abstract idea. There is no indication that the generic computing components are made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power, we do not know and therefore it can be asserted that the problem indicated by the Applicant was not a problem cause by the computer, it is a business problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to register a digital medium on a blockchain. At best, applicant’s identified problem is a business/administrative problem. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 103 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626