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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 16-27 remain pending in the application.
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 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 16-25 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), Claim 26 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture), and Claim 27 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 16-27 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 16 and 26-27:
Claims 16 and 26-27 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving, from a computing device, a first information retrieval request requesting contents of an asset token representing the asset, the information retrieval request comprising a unique asset token identifier associated with the asset token, wherein the asset token comprises at least one attribute identifier, each attribute identifier identifying a respective attribute of the asset, wherein each attribute identifier is associated with one or more respective event token identifiers, each respective event token identifier identifying a respective event token storing an attribute value of the respective attribute of the asset for the attribute identifier; transmitting the contents of the asset token to the computing device; receiving, from the computing device, a second information retrieval request comprising the unique asset token identifier and an attribute identifier of the at least one attribute identifier; identifying at least one attribute value associated with the attribute identifier, each of the at least one attribute value stored in a respective event token which is stored on the blockchain and comprises a unique event token identifier, wherein each unique event token identifier is associated with the unique attribute identifier; and transmitting the at least one attribute value to the computing device.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “computing device” and “blockchain” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because data or information including identifier and attributes of asset token and event token is exchanged and processed for providing contents.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer implemented method of retrieving data associated with an asset that is stored on a blockchain, the method performed on a blockchain node of a blockchain network and comprising:”, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by a computing device, cause the computing device to:”, “A computing device comprising a processor and memory, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor cause the computing device to:”, “computing device”, and “blockchain”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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.
Under the Step 2B, 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 17-25:
Dependent claims 17 and 19-21 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 18 and 22-25 include additional limitations, for example, “smart contract” and “blockchain node” (Claim 18); “blockchain node” and “computing device” (Claim 22); “address”, “smart contract”, and “memory” (Claim 23); “address”, “smart contract”, and “memory” (Claim 24); and “blockchain” and “computing device” (Claim 25), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 17-25 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 differences 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 in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gobel-Ralph (US 20200327486 A1) in view of Pacella (US 20220122050 A1).
Regarding Claims 16 and 26-27, Gobel-Ralph teaches A computer implemented method of retrieving data associated with an asset that is stored on a blockchain, the method performed on a blockchain node of a blockchain network and comprising (Gobel-Ralph: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0059): A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by a computing device, cause the computing device to (Gobel-Ralph: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0059, 0081): A computing device comprising a processor and memory, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor cause the computing device to (Gobel-Ralph: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0059, 0079, 0081):
receiving, from a computing device, a first information retrieval request requesting contents of an asset … representing the asset, the information retrieval request comprising a unique asset … identifier associated with the asset …, wherein the asset … comprises at least one attribute identifier, each attribute identifier identifying a respective attribute of the asset (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0011-0012, 0015, 0062, 0070-0071, 0003 teach(es) the asset lifetime handler device includes: a programming interface means configured to receive instruction data (i.e., information retrieval request) and to respond to the received instruction data by performing at least one of: creating, editing and/or invalidating the ALP of the asset, registering a subscription for push notifications about a change of the ALP, transmitting, as response data, a copy of the ALP and/or a portion thereof, storing a file included in the instruction data, the file being related to the asset and/or retrieving and transmitting, as response data, the file being related to the asset; the asset lifetime handler device further includes: a repository means configured to store a number of asset class descriptors (i.e., contents of an asset), each asset class descriptor including a number of asset attribute descriptors; and a template feeder means configured to, when responding to receiving instruction data specifying one of the number of asset class descriptors, create the ALP for the asset in the ledger of the distributed database system based on the specified asset class descriptor; an asset, such as a good, a machine part, a tool and the like, may be passed along between various sites such as plants, facilities and the like), wherein each attribute identifier is associated with one or more respective event … identifiers, each respective event … identifier identifying a respective event … storing an attribute value of the respective attribute of the asset for the attribute identifier (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0014, 0068-0069 teach(es) the ATL means is further configured to generate a push notification when an asset-based event is observed in the ALP that is maintained in the ledger of the distributed database system); transmitting the contents of the asset … to the computing device (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0017, 0015, 0069-0071, 0114 teach(es) the asset lifetime handler device is configured to receive the instruction data from and/or to transmit the response data); receiving, from the computing device, a second information retrieval request comprising the unique asset … identifier and an attribute identifier of the at least one attribute identifier (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0048, 0058, 0012, 0015 teach(es) the interface offering functionality for registering attribute values in the ALP and/or retrieving the attribute values and/or a history thereof from the ALP); identifying at least one attribute value associated with the attribute identifier, each of the at least one attribute value stored in a respective event … which is stored on the blockchain and comprises a unique event … identifier, wherein each unique event … identifier is associated with the unique attribute identifier; and transmitting the at least one attribute value to the computing device (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0014, 0068-0071 teach(es) Examples for an asset-based event include, in particular, a change of the ALP. Further, an asset-based event may include a user-definable (programmable) condition defined in terms of the asset attribute values included in the ALP; the ATL means is further configured to generate a push notification when an asset-based event is observed in the ALP that is maintained in the ledger of the distributed database system; an asset-based event may be a condition that, if met by the asset attribute values, is indicative of the fact that the asset has been delivered to a certain location, has been machined to a certain degree, is ready for pickup at a certain location, and the like; the asset lifetime handler device further comprises a document serving means configured to: receive instruction data including a file related to the asset; store the received asset-related file for later retrieval; generate an asset attribute value including a link to the asset-related file and a hash value of the asset-related file; and transmit, as response data, the generated asset attribute value).
However, Gobel-Ralph does not explicitly teach asset/event token.
Pacella from same or similar field of endeavor teaches asset/event token (Pacella: Paragraph(s) 0014, 0041, 0051 teach(es) a “non-fungible digital asset” may include any digital asset that is not interchangeable with other digital assets. For example, a non-fungible digital asset may include a digital token, a still image (e.g., a digital trading card, a digital poster, etc.), a digital signature or identifier, augmented reality content, a live photo, an audio file, a video file, and/or any other suitable non-fungible digital asset or combination of non-fungible digital assets. In certain examples, a non-fungible digital asset may be unique. The non-fungibility of a digital asset may be due to any suitable attribute of the digital asset; a prime non-fungible digital asset may be generated that is a unique non-fungible digital asset and that has a unique prime identifier and any other suitable information (e.g., metadata); information (e.g., a series identifier) indicating that the replicated non-fungible digital assets belong to a limited series or set of the same non-fungible digital asset may be recorded in a distributed record (e.g., a distributed ledger implemented by blockchain); the user may be able to selectively share partial ownership of the digital poster with the one or more friends and/or family subject to certain restrictions such as a time restriction. A user account of the user may then receive full ownership of the digital poster back after, for example, a predefined time period expires).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gobel-Ralph to incorporate the teachings of Pacella for asset/event token.
There is motivation to combine Pacella into Gobel-Ralph because Pacella’s teachings of digital token and ownership would facilitate retrieving of assets stored in the blockchain (Pacella: Paragraph(s) 0014, 0041, 0051).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and tokens above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein a plurality of attribute values are identified for the attribute identifier, the method comprising outputting the plurality of attribute values in an ordered sequence in dependence on a time of creation of the event … comprising the plurality of attribute values (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0047-0049 teach(es) The asset tracking systems described herein may protect the history of the asset attribute values from fraudulent manipulations and may improve trust in the contents of the ALP throughout the plurality of realms).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the method is performed by a first smart contract on the blockchain node, and the first information retrieval request is addressed to the first smart contract (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0056, 0069, 0100 teach(es) at least one of the number of transactional records of the ALP is a smart contract transaction. A smart contract transaction may be a transactional record that includes executable code, the executable code being executed by the distributed database system under certain conditions related to the ledger. By enabling the ALP to include a smart contract transaction, control logic for controlling the handling of the asset and the like may be embedded in the ALP of the asset; at least part of the ATL means may be embodied as a smart contract transaction stored in the ledger of the distributed database system, and may be configured to be executed by the distributed system whenever the asset-based event occurs).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 18 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the identifying at least one attribute value associated with the attribute identifier comprises: identifying, from the asset …, a unique event … identifier associated with the attribute identifier; and accessing an event … using the unique event … identifier to identify an attribute value associated with the attribute identifier as part of an attribute value pair (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0068-0069 teach(es) the ATL means is further configured to generate a push notification when an asset-based event is observed in the ALP that is maintained in the ledger of the distributed database system; an asset-based event may be a condition that, if met by the asset attribute values, is indicative of the fact that the asset has been delivered to a certain location, has been machined to a certain degree, is ready for pickup at a certain location, and the like).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the attribute value pair in the event … is associated with a previous event … identifier field, the method comprising: determining, from the previous event … identifier field, a unique event … identifier of a preceding event … that was created before the event …; accessing the preceding event …; and identifying, from the preceding event …, an attribute value for said attribute identifier that the event … updated (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0049-0050 teach(es) an asset lifetime passport, ALP, the ALP constituting a digital representation of a history of the acquired asset attribute values of the asset).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the attribute value pair in the event … is associated with a previous event … identifier field, the method comprising determining from the previous event … identifier field that the attribute value is an initial value for said attribute identifier (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0049-0050, as stated with respect to claim 20).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the method is performed by the blockchain node, outputting the contents of the asset … comprises transmitting the contents of the asset … to the computing device; and outputting the at least one attribute value comprises transmitting the at least one attribute value to the computing device (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0070-0071, 0074, 0077 teach(es) the asset lifetime handler device further comprises a document serving means configured to: receive instruction data including a file related to the asset; store the received asset-related file for later retrieval; generate an asset attribute value including a link to the asset-related file and a hash value of the asset-related file; and transmit, as response data, the generated asset attribute value; a counterparty device from which the document serving means receives the instruction data and to which the document serving means transmits the response data may be, for example, one of the asset tracking devices).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 22 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the first information retrieval request comprises an address of a first smart contract, the method comprising accessing the asset … by querying a first portion of memory using the unique asset … identifier, the first portion of memory associated with the address of the first smart contract (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0016, 0056, 0069, 0073, 0100).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 22 or 23 and token above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein the identifying at least one attribute value associated with the attribute identifier comprises: determining from the asset … an address of a second smart contract which last generated an event … comprising an attribute value associated with the attribute identifier; querying a second portion of memory using the unique asset … identifier and the attribute identifier, the second portion of memory associated with the address of the second smart contract; and in response to said querying, retrieving one or more data records generated by the second smart contract, each of the data records comprising: (i) the unique asset … identifier; (ii) the attribute identifier; and (iii) an attribute value of the at least one attribute value, said attribute value associated with the attribute identifier (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0049-0050, 0016, 0056, 0069, 0073, 0100, 0049, 0092, as stated above with respect to claims 21 and 23).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Gobel-Ralph and Pacella teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above; and Gobel-Ralph further teaches wherein each of the data records are recorded on the blockchain, and each data record comprises a unique transaction identifier identifying a transaction on the blockchain comprising the data record, wherein the method further comprises transmitting the unique transaction identifier of each of the data records to the computing device (Gobel-Ralph: Paragraph(s) 0055-0056 teach(es) upon each acquisition of an asset attribute value of the asset, a corresponding transactional record indicative of the acquired asset attribute value, or a change thereof, may be recorded in the ledger of the distributed database system. Along with the acquired asset attribute value or change thereof, a respective transactional record may further include a timestamp, an identifier of a stakeholder, realm, operating entity, asset tracking device and/or other party that has acquired the asset value, and the like).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “the features of amended claim 16 define the role of the asset token (representing an asset stored on a blockchain), the roles of the attribute identifiers (representing respective attributes of the asset), the relations between the asset and event tokens (each attribute identifier associated with one or more respective event token identifiers, those event token identifiers identifying event tokens that store values of the asset), and further the way in which the attribute values are retrieved (through an association between the attribute identifier supplied by the user and one or more event token identifiers). This provides a complete description of the essential functioning of the invention as described in the specification, and clearly indicates to the skilled person the exact technical features that make this method distinctive,” examiner respectfully argues that data or information such as asset token, attribute identifiers, event token, attribute values, etc. can be processed manually by people, especially when they are recited in the claims without technical details and contexts. For example, the relations between the asset and event tokens are not recited or defined without sufficient technical details and contexts. The additional elements such as “computing device” and “blockchain” do not perform any active functions. It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of asset (a physical or digital object), asset token, event token, blockchain, and their relations or interactions for “asset’s tokenized on-chain representation”.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Gobel-Ralph cannot disclose at least the features of "receiving, from a computing device, a first information retrieval request requesting contents of an asset token representing the asset, the information retrieval request comprising a unique asset token identifier associated with the asset token, wherein the asset token comprises at least one attribute identifier, each attribute identifier identifying respective attribute of the asset", "wherein each attribute identifier is associated with one or more respective event token identifiers, each respective event token identifier identifying a respective event token storing an attribute value of the respective attribute of the asset for the attribute identifier",” examiner respectfully argues that Gobel-Ralph teaches all the features as stated above with respect to the 103 rejections (Gobel-Ralph: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0014, 0068-0071). The technical details and contexts between asset, asset token, and event token are not recited or defined clearly. It is recommended, as stated above, for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of asset (a physical or digital object), asset token, event token, blockchain, and their relations or interactions for “asset’s tokenized on-chain representation”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yantis (US 20220058633 A1) teaches Tokenization Platform, including digital token, a digital ticket to an event, asset type attributes field, and token of virtual asset.
Doney (US 20200342539 A1) teaches Systems, Methods, And Storage Media For Managing Digital Liquidity Tokens In A Distributed Ledger Platform, including digital “liquidity tokens” that define novel composable asset classes, tokenized assets, and non-fungible asset token.
Sinmao (US 20200184431 A1) teaches Multi-Tier Tokenization Platform, including recording events and event data on the network, extracting data for governance, and enforcing governance and execution schema (e.g., bidding and allocation schema).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699