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 were cancelled. Claim 15-30 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Application 18/018,057 claims priority to PCT/EP2021/087527 filed 12/23/2021.
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
As previously discloses in the Non-Final Office Action, dated 01/21/2026, 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.
An updated Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2025 with respect to the Claim Objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite specific technical operations performed by peers of a permissioned blockchain network executing smart contracts, not human activities that could be performed manually or through human interactions. The claim recites the additional elements of a permissioned blockchain network, a peer, a digital medium, database, digital video, and smart contract. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting specific technical elements that provide meaningful limitations beyond mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components.
Applicant argues that Claim 15 recites “determining, by the at least one peer, a content identifier of the digital medium using the smart contract, wherein the smart contract runs a content identification on the digital medium to identify the content identifier and wherein the content identifier is an identifier that uniquely identifies a content of the digital medium”, and is a technical operation that analyzed the actual content to generate a unique identifier. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims describes a system that utilizes existing computer technology such as a smart contract, to carry out the described operations. Determining content and uniquely identifying content are tasks known to be done without the reliance on the capabilities of a computer system and can feasibly be performed by humans alone without automation or computational assistance.
Applicant further argues that Claim 15 recites “generating, by the at least one peer, a registration identifier corresponding to the digital medium using the smart contract, wherein the registration identifier is, in the blockchain network, a globally unique identifier of the registration process” and “storing, by the at least one peer, the registration identifier in a blockchain” which is a specific technical improvement to digital media registration by ensuring immutable, verifiable registration records. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims describes a system that utilizes existing computer technology such as a blockchain, to carry out the described operations. Generating a registration identifier and immutably storing the identifier is known to be done without the reliance on the capabilities of a computer system and can feasibly be performed by humans alone without automation or computational assistance.
Applicant further argues that Claim 15 recites that the method stores “the registration identifier in a blockchain” and provides “the registration identifier and the content identifier to a database” which is a specific technical implementation that improves the security and reliability of digital media registration. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims describes a system that utilizes existing computer technology such as a blockchain and database, to carry out the described operations. The fact that the claims are implemented in a blockchain or computer-centric environment does not alter the character of the claim as being directed to an abstract idea, but rather represents the use of generic computing components to perform functions that are already abstract in nature.
Applicant further argues that Claim 21 recites a verification method where at least one peer determines “whether the at least one corresponding registration identifier is stored in a blockchain to verify the received at least one corresponding registration identifier” and is a technical mechanism for confirming registration authenticity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims describes a system that utilizes existing computer technology such as a blockchain, to carry out the described operations. Verifying registration data is known to be done without the reliance on the capabilities of a computer system and can feasibly be performed by humans alone without automation or computational assistance.
Applicant further argues that Claim 24 recites a system where the at least one peer is configured to “determine a content identifier of the digital medium using the smart contact, wherein the content identifier is an identifier that uniquely identifies a content the digital medium” and “store the registration identifier in a blockchain” which integrates technical elements of fingerprinting and blockchain storage. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims describes a system that utilizes existing computer technology such as a blockchain, and smart contract, to carry out the described operations. The fact that the claims are implemented in a blockchain or computer-centric environment does not alter the character of the claim as being directed to an abstract idea, but rather represents the use of generic computing components to perform functions that are already abstract in nature.
The Applicant further argues that the combination of elements provides a specific technical solution to the problem of securely and reliably registering digital media by providing immutable, verifiable registration through blockchain storage combined with content-based identification through fingerprinting. The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis.
The Applicant further argues that Claim 25 recites that “the content identifier is an acoustic and/or a visual fingerprint of the digital medium” and adds additional eligible limitations beyond the independent claim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed features of fingerprinting are recited at a high level of generality, and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features of fingerprinting rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis, and therefore the claim does not recite significantly more. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights