DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on July 29, 2026.
• Claims 21-22 and 26-27 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 28-39 have been added.
• Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
• Claims 21-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 1, that the claim as a whole is not that of a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interaction, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for authenticating the reliability and transferability of a token being sold by a seller to a buyer based on event information or veracity of information. The Specification at [0003]-[0004] describes problems with validating transactions for example the sale of a ticket for attending a concert. Furthermore, the Specification at [0024], stating "an electronic ticketing validation and fulfillment system is provided to monitor and verify that an electronic ticket or token is transferable and authentic. As provided in further detail herein, the verification may be achieved by at least one or more of (1) determining the ticket token is a valid representation of an actual ticket, (2) verifying the identity of the ticket token's current owner, and (3) confirming that the ticket is transferable. The validation may be performed, preferably, before the ticket sale transaction is completed." The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 1-5, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite A system for implementing blockchain-based transaction verification, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations for implementing a blockchain-based transaction verification system; a blockchain-based transaction; nodes of a first electronic ledger platform; a smart contract; cryptographic token; data stored on a second electronic ledger platform, wherein the second electronic ledger platform is not integrated with the first electronic ledger platform; an application programming interface (API) of the monetary transaction system; a digital signature; an API of the contents rights management system; electronically verifiable identification token; committing to one or more records of the first electronic ledger platform; executing the smart contract; the first electronic ledger platform cannot directly modify records of the second electronic ledger platform; and the witness entity accessing records available on the second electronic ledger platform through the API such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-5 that the claims improve technology, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, platforms, system performing the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, platforms and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0003]-[0004], describing problems with validating transactions for example the sale of a ticket for attending a concert, and at least at [0024], stating “an electronic ticketing validation and fulfillment system is provided to monitor and verify that an electronic ticket or token is transferable and authentic. As provided in further detail herein, the verification may be achieved by at least one or more of (1) determining the ticket token is a valid representation of an actual ticket, (2) verifying the identity of the ticket token's current owner, and (3) confirming that the ticket is transferable. The validation may be performed, preferably, before the ticket sale transaction is completed.”
Applicant’s reliance upon Amdocs, on page 5, is misplaced. In Amdocs, the claims are directed towards the network processing data in way that was unconventional resulting to an improvement to the technical area for processing data by reducing the flow of data records and reducing the amount of data stored in the central database, thus eliminating capacity bottlenecks, and improving the scalability and efficiency of the system, resulting in an improvement to the additional elements themselves. As to the indirect improvements to the technology (i.e. reduction of bandwidth consumption) based upon performance of the claimed invention, any software can be argued to improve a computer. It can always be argued that the software runs the process more efficiently thereby reducing the demands placed upon the computer system, however this does not necessarily mean the computer itself is improved. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 6, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include A system for implementing blockchain-based transaction verification, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations for implementing a blockchain-based transaction verification system; a blockchain-based transaction; nodes of a first electronic ledger platform; a smart contract; cryptographic token; data stored on a second electronic ledger platform, wherein the second electronic ledger platform is not integrated with the first electronic ledger platform; an application programming interface (API) of the monetary transaction system; a digital signature; an API of the contents rights management system; electronically verifiable identification token; committing to one or more records of the first electronic ledger platform; executing the smart contract; the first electronic ledger platform cannot directly modify records of the second electronic ledger platform; and the witness entity accessing records available on the second electronic ledger platform through the API. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 21, 30, and 35 are directed to a method (claim 21), system (claim 30), and apparatus (claim 35). Therefore, on its face, independent claim 21, 30, and 35 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 21, 30, and 35 recite, in part, a method of organizing human activity. Claim 21 recites a method for implementing a transaction verification system, comprising: receiving an indication to manage a transaction associated with transfer of a token by an initiating entity; processing a first set of information associated with the transfer of the token to initiate the transaction, the first set of information including a identifier of a first entity listing the token for transfer and a identifier of a second entity having record ownership of the token on a second platform configured as a contents right management system; transmitting metadata associated with the token to a witness entity configured to verify authenticity and transferability of the token; executing, by the witness entity, verification protocols to confirm that the first entity and the second entity are the same by comparing the identifiers to corresponding records stored and validating a signature associated with the initiating entity, wherein the witness entity is configured to access ownership records stored to determine where the first entity listing the token for transfer matches the second entity having record ownership of the token and whether the token is transferable; identifying, by the witness entity, at least one verifiable identification token associated with the initiating entity; calculating, by the witness entity, an authenticity score for the first entity based on past transaction data stored; verifying, by the witness entity, one or more events associated with the transaction including at least one of initiation of transfer of ownership rights in the token, delivery of the token to a recipient entity, or proof of delivery instrument, the verification based at least in part on the authenticity score satisfying a threshold value; committing, in response to successful verification, transaction information in accordance with a protocol; causing an update to ownership information associated with the token by recording an assertion indicating verification of ownership or transferability and by notifying to complete the transaction only after the witness entity verifies that ownership rights have been transferred, or that transfer of the ownership rights has been initiated; and wherein the witness entity is configured to act as an intermediary mechanism between the first platform and platform, the witness entity accessing records to confirm transfer of the ownership rights; and transferring, upon completion of verification, cryptocurrency corresponding to a transaction value from the recipient entity to the initiating entity by way of the first platform after receiving the confirmation of ownership update from the second platform.
Claim 30 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above, and further recites recording, by the witness entity, an assertion of the verification, the assertion including a verification time and an expiration time within which the assertion remains valid for authorizing the transaction; in response to determining that the witness entity cannot confirm the one or more events, or that the assertion has expired, aborting the transaction and refraining from committing transaction information to any record …the transferring occurring after both (i) the transaction information has been committed to the one or more records, and (ii) receiving confirmation of the ownership update.
Claim 35 recites similar limitations as claim 30 above.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for authenticating the reliability and transferability of a token being sold by a seller to a buyer based on event information or veracity of information, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk, and a commercial and legal interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a first electronic ledger platform and a second electronic ledger platform do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of A system for implementing blockchain-based transaction verification, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations for implementing a blockchain-based transaction verification system; a blockchain-based transaction; nodes of a first electronic ledger platform; a smart contract; cryptographic token; data stored on a second electronic ledger platform, wherein the second electronic ledger platform is not integrated with the first electronic ledger platform; an application programming interface (API) of the monetary transaction system; a digital signature; an API of the contents rights management system; electronically verifiable identification token; committing to one or more records of the first electronic ledger platform; executing the smart contract; the first electronic ledger platform cannot directly modify records of the second electronic ledger platform; and the witness entity accessing records available on the second electronic ledger platform through the API are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving sale data, processing information, updating record data, and verifying authenticity of data, and approving a transaction) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the 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.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 22-24, 28-29, 31-33, and 36-38 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 25-27, 34, and 39 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 21-39 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stefan Marksteiner, "Smart Ticket Protection: An Architecture for Cyber-Protecting Physical Tickets Using Digitally Signed Random Pattern Markers" dated July 2018, IEEE, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8453941?source=IQplus (hereinafter "Marksteiner") discloses ensuring authenticity of tickets for public transport or mass events.
Shi-Cho Cha, "A Blockchain-Based Privacy Preserving Ticketing Service," dated October 2018, IEEE, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8574479?source=IQplus (hereinafter "Cha") discloses a study proposes a privacy preserving Blockchain-Based Ticketing Service (BB Tickets), which stores information about events and related tickets in the blockchain network. As the blockchain technologies can ensure information integrity, ticket buyers can use the data stored in the blockchain network to ensure the authenticity of the purchased tickets and to resolve related disputes. Furthermore, the Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge (NIZK) scheme is utilized in the proposed system to protect user privacy. Therefore, this study contributes to providing a privacy-preserving means for users to enjoy the reliable ticketing service provided by the blockchain technologies.
Keng-Pei Lin, "A Smart Contract-Based Mobile Ticketing System with Multi-Signature and Blockchain," dated October 2019, IEEE, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9015425?source=IQplus (hereinafter "Lin") discloses a blockchain-based mobile ticketing system which utilizes smart contracts and multi-signature to enforce and authorize the executions of transactions. The transactions of buying and using mobile tickets are verified by the blockchain, and the immutable ledger and multi-signature on the blockchain ensures the authenticity and security of the tickets. The experimental results show that the proposed system is very efficient and requires only a nominal cost.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights