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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-5, 14 and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 15-17 were previously presented.
Claims 16-13 were previously withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 14-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-5 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5 and 14-20 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the plurality of NFTs including an NFT of a vehicle and one or more NFTs of various users, wherein the various users include two or more of: a seller of the vehicle, a buyer of the vehicle, a lending institution providing financing for the vehicle, an insurance agency providing an insurance policy for the vehicle, a regulatory authority that regulates an operation of the vehicle, and a government agency that issues a title of the vehicle; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing one or more transactions between the various users of the vehicle management system, wherein the smart contracts are created by the various users, and wherein the smart contracts are executed at at least one of the contracts, and wherein the one or more transactions include one or more of: transferring funds of a buyer to a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting and receiving updated title data from a government agency, and storing the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering a license plate of the vehicle with a regulatory authority, and storing registration data received from the regulatory authority in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling an insurance policy of the seller with an insurance agent, and removing insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more digital keys of the seller to the vehicle with the vehicle in the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more smart contracts of the seller regarding the vehicle in the NFT of the seller and/or the NFT of the vehicle; and generating a digital key for the buyer, storing the digital key in the NFT of the buyer and/or the NFT of the vehicle, and sending the digital key to the buyer”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a blockchain, a streaming service, a virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the virtual machine (VM), the vehicle management system and the computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…creating a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle including data of the vehicle, and storing the first NFT, the first NFT including a first set of one or more smart contracts for initiating and conducting a sale of the vehicle to a buyer, wherein the first set of one or more smart contracts specify requirements for transferring ownership of the vehicle; creating a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle including data of the owner, and storing the second NFT, the second NFT including a second set of one or more smart contracts created by the owner/seller, and the second set of one or more smart contracts establishing conditions of the owner for selling the vehicle; creating a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle including data of the buyer, and storing the third NFT, the third NFT including a third set of one or more smart contracts created by the buyer and establishing conditions of the buyer for purchasing the vehicle; receiving event data relating to the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts, provides the event data in real time to one or more contract, execute the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts based on the event data; and in response to the one or more contract executing, executing a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts, and in response to the one or more contract executing, determining that the conditions of the owner for selling the vehicle and the conditions of the buyer for purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied based on the event data, performing one or more transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer, wherein the one or more transactions include at least transferring funds from the buyer to the seller, and updating the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate the vehicle from the seller”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed method of a blockchain, a streaming service, a vehicle management system, a virtual machines (VM) and one or more computing devices that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “creating… a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle, and storing… the first NFT; creating …a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle, and storing… the second NFT; creating …a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle, and storing …the third NFT; receiving… event data…; provides …the event data in real time to one or more contract…; execute …the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts; executing…a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts; determining …that the conditions of the owner for selling and purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied; performing…transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer; transferring …funds from a digital wallet of the buyer to a digital wallet of the seller; updating… the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate… the vehicle from the seller”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the vehicle management system, the virtual machines (VM) and the one or more computing devices that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “creating… a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle, and storing… the first NFT; creating …a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle, and storing… the second NFT; creating …a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle, and storing …the third NFT; receiving… event data…; provides …the event data in real time to one or more contract…; execute …the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts; executing…a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts; determining …that the conditions of the owner for selling and purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied; performing…transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer; transferring …funds from a digital wallet of the buyer to a digital wallet of the seller; updating… the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate… the vehicle from the seller”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 15-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 14. Therefore, claims 4-5 and 15-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 14. Claims 4-5 and 15-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the computing device, the blockchain, the virtual machines (VM), the streaming service, the vehicle management system and the one or more computing devices included in the dependent claims 3, 15, 16, 17, 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “stored…the one or more NFTs of the various users of the vehicle management state; and executed…the smart contracts…(claim 3); executed…the smart contracts based on data (claim 15, claim 16, claim 17); receiving…a request to associate new data; generating…an NFT for the sender; stream, receive and adding…the new data (claim 19), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 4-5 and 15-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the computing device, the blockchain, the virtual machines (VM), the streaming service, the vehicle management system and the one or more computing devices included in the dependent claims 3, 15, 16, 17, 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “stored…the one or more NFTs of the various users of the vehicle management state; and executed…the smart contracts…(claim 3); executed…the smart contracts based on data (claim 15, claim 16, claim 17); receiving…a request to associate new data; generating…an NFT for the sender; stream, receive and adding…the new data (claim 19), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 4-5 and 15-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-5 and 14-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…the combination of claimed elements of claim 1 reflects an improvement to existing technology, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and is patent-eligible… Moreover, amended claim 14 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application by implementing it with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim…” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-20).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a blockchain, a streaming service, a virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the virtual machine (VM), the vehicle management system and the computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, these are improvements in a business/financial problem to a business/financial solution in a process of “managing and tracking ownership of a vehicle, based on smart contracts stored in a distributed ledger such as a blockchain”. This business/financial solution is also one of the business solutions that the Applicant’s invention tries to solve (please see the Applicant’s specification in pages 1-5 or Applicant's published application at paragraphs 1-11). Thus, there is no improvements technology in the Applicant’s claims and claim 1 does not reflect an improvement to existing technology, the alleged abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 is rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claim is not eligible. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “… In particular, amended claim 14 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a technological solution to the technical problem of managing vehicle ownership transfers in a decentralized system while maintaining security, automation, and efficiency. Specifically, amended claim 14 recites a particular distributed processing architecture, where the smart contracts are executed at distributed contract executing VM embedded in the blockchain copies as user computing devices, rather than at a centralized vehicle management system. This particular structure reduces overhead process, increases execution speed by eliminating network communication delays, and enhances security by reducing network communications. See Applicant's published application, paragraph [0123] …” (Please see the remarks on page 20).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner fails to see in the Appellant’s specification nor in the claims the limitations that reduces overhead process, increases execution speed by eliminating network communication delays, and enhances security by reducing network communications.
Merely automating the process of managing vehicle ownership transfers using a decentralized, distributed vehicle management system to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”) (citation omitted); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commce’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming this collection of elements led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access, ‘our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’’’) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same).
Therefore, there are no technological solution to the technical problem that recites in the amended claim 14 and the amended claim 14 do not integrate any judicial exception into a practical application (Please see the remarks on page 20). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694