DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 10/13/2022 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 10/17, 2025.
Claims 1, 8-9 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7, 10-11are directed to a computer executable instruction stored on a non-transitory storage medium, claim 8 is directed to a system, and claim 9 is directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 9) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 9) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A point management system comprising a communication network, a server, and a user terminal, the point management system comprising: a storage device configured to store points
[B] associate a non-fungible token with a user, the non-fungible token configured for transaction on a blockchain network; and
[C] accumulate a set of points stored in the storage device in association with the nonfungible token, according to a predetermined condition; wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token;
[D] receive instructions from the user for using one or more points of the set of points stored in electronic storage;
[E] adjust one or more attributes of a virtual object associated with the non-fungible token based on a value of the one or more points used; and
[F] display the virtual object with the adjusted one or more attributes.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 9) recites: conditionally accumulating points ([C]); receiving instruction for using points ([D]); adjust object attributes ([E]); and paraphrase limitation ([display object along with its attributes]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing social activities, like games. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 9) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a storage device,” “a processor” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “, the non-fungible token configured for transaction on a blockchain network”, “wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token”, as applied to the non-fungible token, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: associating the non-fungible token with a user ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 9) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 9) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 11 further recite:
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non- fungible token is executed upon permission of accumulation of the points for the non-fungible token.
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token is executed, when the number of changes of the user for the non-fungible token is within a predetermined range.
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token is executed, when an address indicating an owner of the non-fungible token is a predetermined address.
wherein the accumulating points associated with the token is executed, when an address indicating an owner of the token is a predetermined address.
wherein the electronic storage is further configured to store a distributed ledger of the blockchain network.
wherein the non-fungible token comprises identification information of the user that has been written into the distributed ledger of the blockchain network.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the accumulated points; the electronic storage; the non-fungible token – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 11 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 (which depends on claim 1) additionally recites:
[A] associating the non-fungible token with a current user;
[B] accumulating further points in association with the non-fungible token, according to the predetermined condition, wherein the accumulating further points in association with the non-fungible token is executed over time.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data (using the points), storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 (which depends on claim 1) additionally recites:
using the points accumulated in association with the non-fungible token.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data (using the points), storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 (which depends on claim 6) additionally recites:
changing an attribute value of an object or content data corresponding to the non-fungible token, according to the points accumulated in association with the non-fungible token.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data (using the points), storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 (which depends on claim 1) additionally recites: wherein the electronic storage is further configured to
[A] store a distributed ledger of the blockchain network.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data (using the points), storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“accumulating and using points in a gaming environment”).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
In addition, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig1, rc10, rc20 and [0015]-[0022], including among others: processor; memory, storage device.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Overall, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendetto et al (US 2023/0079127), in view of George et al (US 6,996,566), in further view of Kurian et al (US 2023/0073545).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 9 – Benedetto discloses: A point management system comprising a communication network, a server, and a user terminal, the point management system comprising:
a storage device configured to store points a processor configured to: {see at least fig1, rc52, [0040]-[0041] }
associate a non-fungible token with a user {see at least [0047] ownership and use rights of NFT}, the non-fungible token configured for transaction on a blockchain network; and {see at least [0008] user ownership of NFT}
accumulate a set of points stored in the storage device in association with the nonfungible token {see at least [0081] NFT reaching a certain level score (reads on points accumulation), according to a predetermined condition; {see at least [0081] NFT reaching a certain level score as score accumulation (readds on predetermined condition}
receive instructions from the user for using one or more points of the set of points stored in electronic storage; {see at least [0014] request (reads on instructions) to use the digital asset (reads on points); fig7, rc714, [0074]-[0075] request (reads on instructions) to use digital assets …}
Benedetto does not disclose, however, George discloses:
adjust one or more attributes of a virtual object associated with the non-fungible token based on a value of the one or more points used; and {see at least [claim6] object attributes adjusted based on database limitations (database reads on accumulated points)}
display the virtual object with the adjusted one or more attributes. {see at least (49)/[9:58-10:5] constraints and limitations shown (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on displaying the adjusted attributes}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Benedetto to include the elements of George. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to utilize the accumulated points. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Benedetto evidently discloses accumulating gaming points and using them. George is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of adjusting virtual objects attributes in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both accumulating gaming points and using them, as well as adjusting virtual objects attributes are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Benedetto, as well as George would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Benedetto / George.
Benedetto, George does not disclose, however, Kurian discloses:
wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token; {see at least [0031]-[0032] adding value to an NFT}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Benedetto, George to include the elements of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to keep the value of tokens updated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Benedetto, George evidently discloses accumulating gaming points and using them. Kurian is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of adding value to tokens in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both accumulating gaming points and using them, as well as adding value to tokens are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Benedetto, George, as well as Kurian would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Benedetto, George / Kurian.
Regarding Claim 2 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses:
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non- fungible token is executed upon permission of accumulation of the points for the non-fungible token. {see at least fig2, rc702, [0060] monitor performance and completion of task (reads on permission of accumulation)); [0047] terms of ownership, length of ownership, if it can be transferred (reads on permission)}
Regarding Claim 3 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses: wherein the user is a previous user, {see at least [0047] current and past owners of NFTs}
the computer-executable instructions for causing the computer to further execute:
associating the non-fungible token with a current user; and {see at least fig4, rc44, [0052] fig5, rc504, [0053] transfer NFT with points to other players; [0047] current and past owners of NFTs; [abstract] ownership transferred}
accumulating further points in association with the non-fungible token, according to the predetermined condition, wherein the accumulating further points in association with the non-fungible token is executed over time. {see at least fig4, rc44, [0052] fig5, rc504, [0053] transfer NFT with points to other players; [0047] current and past owners of NFTs; [abstract] ownership transferred; resume the game (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on further points)}
Regarding Claim 4 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses:
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token is executed, when the number of changes of the user for the non-fungible token is within a predetermined range. {see at least [0081] NFT reaching a certain level, score, as points accumulation (reads on predetermined range)}
Regarding Claim 5 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses:
wherein the accumulating points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token is executed, when an address indicating an owner of the non-fungible token is a predetermined address. {see at least fig7, rc716, [0075] verify current ownership}
Regarding Claim 6 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses: wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise
using the points accumulated in association with the non-fungible token. {see at least fig5, rc502, [0053] …using the NFTs the user has won}
Regarding Claim 7 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 6. George further discloses: wherein the using the points associated with the non-fungible token comprises
changing an attribute value of an object or content data corresponding to the non-fungible token, according to the points accumulated in association with the non-fungible token. {see at least [claim6] object attributes adjusted based on database limitations (database reads on accumulated points)}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Benedetto, George, Kurian to include additional elements of George. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to change the attributes proportionally to an achievement. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Benedetto, George, Kurian evidently discloses utilizing accumulated gaming points. George is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of changing virtual objects attributes based on the accumulated gaming points in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Benedetto further discloses: wherein the electronic storage is further configured to
store a distributed ledger of the blockchain network. {see at least fig2, rc200, [0046] storing a ledger}
Regarding Claim 11 – Benedetto, George, Kurian discloses the limitations of Claim 10. Benedetto further discloses:
wherein the non-fungible token comprises identification information of the user that has been written into the distributed ledger of the blockchain network. {see at least [0002] person identified in the NFT; [0073] identification in NFT}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160155292 A1 Mound; Andrew Jonathan System and Method for Game Players to Achieve Multiple Status Levels in a Game Account from Visits to Authorized Locations - A system and method are provided for game players to accumulate points in their personal game account and achieve different hierarchy status levels. Authorized communication-enabled locations are configured with a transmitter device that broadcasts an ID signal unique to the location or a receiver that receives an ID signal unique to a particular player. The players are provided with capability to receive the unique ID signals emitted by the transmitter devices, or to broadcast the ID signal unique to the player for receipt by the receiver in the locations. Point values are assigned to different game-related activities performed by the players at the locations. A game server automatically identifies the player and the particular location upon receipt of a transmission of one of the unique ID signals and automatically credits the player's account with the points assigned to the activities.
US 20140155139 A1 Nicolas; Jean-Francois et al. Reverse marketing and gaming - The traditional way of making a promotional offer is to determine an advantage to offer and then to inform the prospects or customers or prospects of the advantage. The advantage can consist in any advantage, like rebates, additional content, coupons, and all types of benefits a man of the art can think of. An appropriate communication is elaborated, including information through advertising, packaging, point-of-sale promotion or communication, and all types of communication a man of the art can think of. Generally, the promotional operation is associated with a product. Generally, the promotional operation is associated with a period of validity of the offer. During the period of validity, for example between a first date and a second later date, the promotional offer is valid. Generally, the promotional offer is associate with a maximum number of offers. For example, a quantity of X products is produced with a special packaging indicating what the offer is and the period of validity of the offer, and additional communication is done through advertising and point-of-sale promotion or communication.
US 20150269706 A1 Popovic; Jovan et al. Deforming a Surface via a Control Point - Methods and apparatus for manipulating digital images. A warping module is described that enables the manipulation of a surface by selectively deforming portions of the surface while maintaining local rigidity. The user may position multiple control points on a surface to constrain deformation. The user may specify multiple properties (e.g., translation, rotation, depth, and scale) at each control point. A mesh may be overlaid on the surface. The warping module may perform an initialization in which the properties are propagated other vertices in the mesh to generate an initial deformed mesh. The warping module may then perform an iterative optimization operation on the deformed mesh to improve the deformation while retaining local rigidity. Thus, instead of moving every pixel in the surface, the warping module moves or adjusts coordinates of the vertices of the mesh. The surface is then deformed according to the deformed mesh.
US 20200038761 A1 Packin; Assaf et al. MARKET-BASED GAMING PLATFORM - A method is disclosed for provisioning a market-based game on a blockchain platform comprising: allocating, on the blockchain platform, a plurality of non-fungible tokens, each non-fungible token representing a different real-life entity in a pool of real-life entities; for each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens, allocating, on the blockchain platform, one or more corresponding fungible tokens that represent shares in the non-fungible token; allocating, on the blockchain platform, pool-management logic; allocating, on the blockchain platform, entity-management logic; and replenishing the pool-specific award by transferring the pool-specific award to a wallet that is associated with the pool of real-life entities for further distribution by the pool-management logic and the entity-management logic.
US 20020161630 A1 Kern , K. Jon et al. Loyalty reward program for reducing the balance of a loan obligation - A method and apparatus for reducing the balance of a consumer or educational loan obligation using a loyalty reward program is disclosed. Loan obligors can reduce the balances of their loan obligations by purchasing consumer goods and services that they would normally purchase. The method essentially comprises the steps of (a) establishing a site on a global computer network; (b) recognizing at least certain users of the site; (c) directing the recognized users to merchants; (d) enabling accumulation of loyalty points by the recognized users based upon purchases from the merchants; (e) monitoring the purchases by the recognized users from the merchants; (f) tracking the accumulated loyalty points; and (g) permitting selective redemption of the accumulated loyalty points. Users of the site are recognized by requiring them to provide initial registration information. Accumulated loyalty points may be categorized with a status of "pending" or a status of "earned." Selective redemption of the accumulated loyalty points includes selective application of earned loyalty points to a loan of a recognized user to permit repayment of the loan, or selective transfer of earned loyalty points from one recognized user to another recognized user. Information about accumulated, redeemed, and transferred loyalty points may be displayed to a recognized user.
US 20190130701 A1 Simons; Jordan Management Of Virtual Goods In Distributed Multi-Ledger Gambling Architecture - Various embodiments provide management of virtual goods. In some embodiments, a gaming platform can be used to provide a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics, and the like, which are associated with virtual goods. Non-limiting examples of virtual goods comprise: characters; badges/icons; gameplay attributes; virtual money; cryptocurrencies; tokens; digital gifts; gameplay levels/add-ons; and prizes, among other examples. In some examples, gaming systems can directly interact with the distributed multi-ledger architecture for secure and transparent transactions which can also be accessed by auditors, tax authorities, partners, and/or other entities. Some examples may use private and/or public blockchains as part of the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture. For instance, multiple distributed network nodes may be utilized to manage transaction records.
US 20080287198 A1 Callery; Brian et al. System and Method for Conducting a Fantasy Sports Competition - The present invention embodiments pertain to conducting fantasy sports or other competitions, where users select or draft an entirely new team of professional players each week (or at other suitable time interval). The competition types (including playoffs) include fee based and free. Each fee based competition has a pre-determined entry fee, and prizes are awarded to the winner of that competition each week. The free competitions similarly include weekly prizes and further provide for a grand prize. Within each of the free and fee based types of competitions, users may compete in a "private" competition or a randomly composed "open" competition. Users within the free and fee based competitions may accumulate points that qualify for redemption to obtain prizes. These points are accumulated based upon the statistical performance of the drafted players for each team. The present invention embodiments further provide mechanisms for information sharing and interaction between users.
US 20200242105 A1 Rich; John David et al. PLATFORM FOR CREATING AND USING ACTIONABLE NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS (KNFT) - A distributed computing platform and method for creating actionable digital assets and tokens incorporating influence and outreach (“KNFT”). A KNFT application server may be configured to receive, over a distributed computing network from a remote computing node, a request for a new non-fungible token wherein the KNFT comprises a unique KNFT identifier, at least one metadata element, and least one social vector. A blockchain proxy server may be operatively connected to the KNFT application server and to a distributed blockchain ledger. Social actions may comprise user comment, connection, direct message, like, or favorable rating, and a change in ownership of the KNFT may be written to the social vector by a KNFT API. The social vector may comprise social vector data from at least one prior owner, and the KNFT may further comprise a circulation trail vector that incorporates the ownership history of the KNFT.
US 7357718 B2 Yamaoka; Masatoshi et al. Server for network game, network game process control method, network game progress control program and recording medium storing network game progress control program - In order to enable a user to play a game continuously and to facilitate acquisition of valuable data by the user, the present invention provides a network game server device 1 that conducts a game in which a user is enabled to acquire valuable data having a prescribed value while performing transmission/reception of data with a terminal device employed by the user through a network 2 enables the user to play a single game of a plurality of games; awards prescribed points to this user in accordance with the results of the game played by the user; and provides to this user valuable data having a prescribed value in accordance with the points awarded to the user.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that, among others, the claimed "accumulating a set of points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token, according to a predetermined condition, wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token," which is performed by the claimed processor or computer, is not equivalent to managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people. In Applicant's claimed invention, points are accumulated by being added as values to the NFT. At least in this regard, the Examiner fails to provide articulated reasoning explaining exactly how this accumulation process is regarded as managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (accumulating points, receiving instructions for using the points, adjusting an attribute of a virtual object and displaying the virtual object) and in view of the specification (managing points), it has been concluded that the claims of the instant application fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant reemphasizes that at least the claimed accumulation of a set of points stored in electronic storage in association with the non-fungible token, according to a predetermined condition, wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token, is an inventive concept and not an abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 9) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Furthermore, the accumulation of points added to the NFT as currently claimed is certainly not a mere instruction to a computer or a general link to a technological environment.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Examiner does not address the accumulation of points that are values added to the NFT as currently claimed. When the independent claims are evaluated as a whole, the claimed elements, including such specific accumulation, are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner's conclusion under Step 2B is without merit.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action fully addresses the claim limitation in question:
Further, the qualifiers “, the non-fungible token configured for transaction on a blockchain network”, “wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token”, as applied to the non-fungible token, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that 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. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments. Nevertheless, Kurian discloses:
wherein the points associated with the non-fungible token are values that are added to the non-fungible token; {see at least [0031]-[0032] adding value to an NFT}
Kurian also discloses:
accumulate a set of points stored in the storage device in association with the nonfungible token {see at least [0031]-[0032] adding value to an NFT}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698
Prosecution Insights