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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed on 02/24/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on February 24, 2026.
• Claims 21 and 27 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 21-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 101 rejections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner has entered new 35 USC § 101rejections because the limitations that overcame the 101 rejection have been removed. The Examiner notes that the additional elements of the claims do not integrate a practical application.
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 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); a digital signature; 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 page 9 where Applicant argues the claims provide improvement to 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.”
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 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 21 is directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, independent claim 21 is 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), claim 21 recites, 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 verify information about the transactions managed by the monetary transaction system and the content rights management system; 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 selling 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; updating ownership information associated with the token; 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.
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 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); a digital signature; 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 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 25-27 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 21-27 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.
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