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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Independent claim 1 has been currently amended. Claim 11-12 and 15-16 are previously withdrawn. Clams 18-27 are previously canceled. Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 17 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2.1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter “ initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time;” [See amended claim 1] , which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, as drafted, is a system claim comprising a processor and a processor cannot deliver physical products such as water bottles. The Applicant’s originally filed Specification does not describe that a computer systems performing the function of imitating a delivery of physical products. Line 5-7 on page 19, as referred to by the Applicant in the Remarks, only indicate a condition that a certain portion of sales profits, after exceeding a reserve price, will be contributed and drawn once the APQ water delivery begins, but these lines do not clearly state that the computer/processor executing the function of initiating a delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time;”
Since the dependent claims 2-10, 13-14 and 17 inherit the deficiency of their base claim 1 , are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-10, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 are to a system /apparatus, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A system for rewarding users of a product with benefits related to ownership of a Production Entity that sells the product on a blockchain platform, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor and being configured to store processor-executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising the steps of:
allocating on the blockchain platform with respect to the Production Entity, purchase logic including one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by at least one node in the blockchain platform, cause the node to: register users to the blockchain platform;
process sales orders of the product from the users, and store, for each of the sales orders of the product from the users, a corresponding smart contract in a decentralized ledger;
qualify users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward;
calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users; and
provide the number P of the product to a Fintech Entity;
allocating on the blockchain platform with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic including one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by at least one node in the blockchain platform cause the node to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity;
divide the plurality of non-fungible tokens into a first number N1 of NFTs and a second number N2 of NFTs;
allocate, on the blockchain platform, the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product;
allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a qualified user based on the number of the product purchased by the qualified user;
receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens:
in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time;
allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens;
once the delivery of the product begins, drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and
executing a transaction on the blockchain platform providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet using a corresponding smart contract for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limited limitations in claim 1 comprising, “register users, process sales orders of the product from the users; qualify users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward; calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users; allocating with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic, which when executed cause to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity; allocate the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product; allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a qualified user based on the number of the product purchased by the qualified user; receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens; in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time; allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens; drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and executing a transaction providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity”, relate to a commercial transaction for rewarding users of a product with benefits related to ownership of a Production Entity that sells the product falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
The limitations comprising, “ allocating with respect to the Production Entity, purchase logic, register users; qualify users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward; calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users; allocating with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic, which when executed cause to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity; divide the plurality of non-fungible tokens into a first number N1 of NFTs and a second number N2 of NFTs; allocate the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product; allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a user based on the number of the product purchased by a user; in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time; allocating a drawing ticket to a qualified user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens; drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, all the steps of allocating purchase logic, for registering users, allocating rewards logic for allocating NFTs, dividing the plurality of NFTs into first and second number, allocating the NFTs into a purchase wallet and rewards pool wallet, allocating a number of redeemable tokens based on received number P of the product, and allocating a number of redeemable tokens based on the number of products purchased by the user, determining users having winning tickets by drawing rewards in a rewards pool, and responsive to a request a human can evaluate the request and take the action of imitating a delivery of the product, allocating a drawing ticket to a user based on redeemable tokens and determining users who have a winning drawing tickets based on drawing rewards in reward pool; can be done by one or more human operators as these steps encompass require observing , evaluating/calculating, various data , judgement and opinion to allocate purchase or reward logics , calculation of a number P of the product, allocating NFTS, redeemable tokens, a drawing ticket. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from practically being performed manually in the mind using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under circumstances wherein a claim recites abstract ideas falling into different groups, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here the steps, as discussed above fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. All these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Since the other pending claims 2-10, 13-14, and 17 depend from claim 1, they recite abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Thus, claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-10, 13-14, 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer components comprising a generic processor
(i) register users to the blockchain platform;
(ii) process sales orders of the product from the users, and store, for each of the sales orders of the product from the users, a corresponding smart contract in a decentralized ledger;
(iii) qualify users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward;
(iv) calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users; and
(v) provide the number P of the product to a Fintech Entity;
(vi) allocating on the blockchain platform with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic including one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by at least one node in the blockchain platform cause the node to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity;
(vii) divide the plurality of non-fungible tokens into a first number N1 of NFTs and a second number N2 of NFTs;
(viii) allocate, on the blockchain platform, the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product;
(ix) allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a qualified user based on the number of the product purchased by the qualified user;
(x) receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens;
(xi) in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time;
(xii) allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens;
(xiii) once the delivery of the product begins, drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and
(xiv) executing a transaction on the blockchain platform providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet using a corresponding smart contract for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity.
The steps of (ii), (v), (x), and (xiv) “(ii) process sales orders of the product from the users, and store, for each of the sales orders of the product from the users, a corresponding smart contract in a decentralized ledger; (v) provide the number P of the product to the Fintech Entity and receiving of the number P from the Production Entity; (x) receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens; and (xiv) executing a transaction on the blockchain platform providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet using a corresponding smart contract for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity; recite generic steps of processing sales orders, providing information P about the product purchased, receiving the information P, receiving a request for redeeming tokens, and executing a transaction for providing a user specific reward by a generic computer/processor. The limitations directed to receiving information and providing information on a blockchain platform are mere data gathering, data storing such as a smart contract, and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, storing and transmitting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting/outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The judicial exception of “storing a smart order for each sales order in a decentralized ledger such as a blockchain and executing sales orders using smart contracts is a long-standing practice before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in the process of storing and using smart contracts in a blockchain. Although the additional element “using smart contract” limits the identified judicial exceptions “of processing the sales orders ,” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (smart contracts in a blockchain ), its fails to add an inventive concept to the claims as the limitations, because, as drafted, they do not recite technical improvements in using the smart contracts . See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also recites that the steps (i), (iii), (iv). (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), and (xi) are performed by a computer. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim also recites the step “(xi)in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time”, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers imitating delivery of a physical product such as a bottle of AQP water, see the Applicant’s Remarks pages 9-10, “ As disclosed in the cited paragraph on page 16, lines 19-27 of the specification, the AQP tokens (1.e., the redeemable tokens) are used by the user(s) to redeem AQP water (i.e., the product), and each AQP token may be redeemed for a bottle of AQP water. In other words, in response to a request from a qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens, the same user-specific number of bottles of the AQP water will be delivered to the user in the later given time.”. The act of initiating delivery of physical products such as water bottle can be processed manually and does not require a computer to perform that.
The judicial exceptions of “(i) register users to the blockchain platform; (vi) allocating on the blockchain platform with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic including one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by at least one node in the blockchain platform cause the node to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity; (viii) allocate, on the blockchain platform, the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product;”, and (xi) executing the generic step providing user specific reward on the blockchain platform “ are performed on a blockchain platform. The blockchain platform, as recited, is used to apply the abstract ideas of registering users, allocating rewards logic , allocating a plurality of non-fungible tokens, allocating the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product;” and the generic function of providing user specific reward. The recitation of “using a blockchain platform” in these limitations (merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception and generic computer function is performed. Although the additional element “using a blockchain platform” limits these identified judicial exceptions and generic computer function, merely confines the use of the abstract idea and performing a generic function to a particular technological environment (blockchain) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Limitations of dependent claims 2-10, 13-14, and 17 have been reviewed by the Examiner and they merely expand the scope of the limitations considered for the base claim 1 without adding any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
Claims 2-3, 8-9 expand the allocating steps, claim 4 expands the function of the registering step, claim 5 further expands the step of processing sales orders, claim 6 recites the step of making a comparison between the number of the products purchased by a user against a predetermined numerical threshold to determine whether the user is qualified to receive a user-specific reward, which is a mental process, claim 7 recites non-functional descriptive subject matter describing the product to be purchased, claim 10 merely describes collecting redeemed tokens and then destroying the rewards pool wallet , which are generic and known functions, limitations of claim, clam13 recites a mathematical concept, claim 14 recites the steps of auctioning NFTs, depositing and storing steps, which are generic functions, and claim 17 merely describes the system as what it comprises. As such, these additional elements of the dependent claims 2-10, 13-14, and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements of claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 11-10, 13-14, and 17 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and the existing concept of using a blockchain platform previously known to the industry, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The steps of storing and using smart contracts in a blockchain for processing sales orders amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Additional elements of providing the number P of the product to the Fintech entity and providing user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary transmitting data. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, and transmitting/providing steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or previously known to the industry and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, pending claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 are patent ineligible.
4 Prior art discussion:
Reference claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor enders obvious, at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising executing on a blockchain platform processing sales orders of the product from the users, qualifying users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward, calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users, and provide the number P of the product to a Fintech Entity, allocating a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity, dividing the plurality of non-fungible tokens into a first number N1 of NFTs and a second number N2 of NFTs, allocate, on the blockchain platform, the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product, allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a qualified user based on the number of the product purchased by the qualified user, receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens, in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time, allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens, once the delivery of the product begins, allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens, drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and executing a transaction on the blockchain platform providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet using a corresponding smart contract for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity.
Pending claims 2-10, 13-14 and 17 depend from claim 1.
5. Note: If claim 1 is amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, the application can be placed in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
6.1: Rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b)
Reference rejection of claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 under 35 USC 112(b) Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025, see page 11 have been considered and found persuasive in view of the current amendments to the claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Reference rejection of claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 under 35 USC 112(a) Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025, see page 11 have been considered but are not persuasive, because the subject matter disclosed in the Specification on page 19, lines 5-7, do not describe that a computer systems performs the function of imitating a delivery of physical products. Line 5-7 on page 19, as referred to by the Applicant in the Remarks, only indicate a condition that a certain portion of sales profits, after exceeding a reserve price, will be contributed and drawn once the APQ water delivery begins, but these lines do not clearly state that the computer/processor executing the function of initiating a delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time. As such the limitations, “ initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time;” [See amended claim 1] , was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17 under 35USC 112 (a) is sustainable and maintained.
6.2. Rejection under 35 USC 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025, see pages 13-17, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, because the claim 1 limitations do recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Step 2A, Prong One part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations, “register users, process sales orders of the product from the users; qualify users to determine the eligibility of each user for receiving a user- specific reward; calculate a number P of the product to be delivered in a predetermined period of time based on the sales orders from the users; allocating with respect to the Fintech Entity, rewards logic, which when executed cause to: allocate a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in total number N, each non-fungible token representing a percentage of stock ownership of the Production Entity; allocate the first number N1 of NFTs into a purchase base wallet and the second number N2 of NFTs into a rewards pool wallet, respectively, and upon receiving the number P of the product from the Production Entity, allocate a number of redeemable tokens corresponding to the number P of the product; allocating a user-specific number of redeemable tokens to a qualified user based on the number of the product purchased by the qualified user; receiving a request from the qualified user to redeem the user-specific number of the redeemable tokens; in response to the request, initiating delivery of the user-specific number of the product to the qualified user in the predetermined period of time; allocating a drawing ticket to a user upon a predetermined number of the redeemable tokens; drawing rewards in a rewards pool to determine users who have winning drawing tickets, according to reward rules; and executing a transaction providing the user-specific reward to a corresponding user for each of the users who have winning drawing tickets, wherein at least one of the rewards has the benefits of stock shares corresponding to the ownership of the Production Entity”, relate to a commercial transaction for rewarding users of a product with benefits related to ownership of a Production Entity that sells and delivers the product to a customer by drawing rewards in a rewards pool and falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Applicant has not filed separate arguments that the limitations of claim 1 recite “Mental Processes”, as analyzed above in paragraph 3 above.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16 , because the claim 1 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A, Prong Two part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, “As set forth above, the claims of the present application are related to a method for rewarding users of a product with benefits related to ownership of a Production Entity that sells the product on a blockchain platform, with sufficient details of how the method is performed in an ecosystem (which includes the Production Entity and the Fintech Entity). With the claimed method being used (and with the additional elements being taken in combination), certain improvements of the ecosystem can be achieved, as described throughout the specification. For example, among other things, page 14 of the specification discloses that, the Fintech Entity is adapted for providing a unique token-based payment and NFT issuance system that not only supports the daily operation of the Production Entity, but also creates wealth through its unique "fivefold growth model", which can be enjoyed by and awarded to users or consumers, and then shares the resulting benefits through the ecosystem's charitable entity (under the Fintech Entity) to population who otherwise cannot economically afford the product; page 15 of the specification discloses that, instead of relying on either the traditional wholesale to retail or HOD (home or office delivery) business model, Production Entity is utilizing blockchain technology throughout the AQP ecosystem to manage AQP water's entire life cycle, making the process a lot more efficient and cost-effective; and pages 18-19 of the specification discloses that, using the ecosystem 100 to practice the present invention not only re-distributes wealth and optimally utilize resources such as AQP water, but also creates additional wealth simultaneously. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements as recited in the claims do not merely provide action(s) that are related to instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers, the claims of the present application integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and are thus not directed to a judicial exception. “, because they do not point out which additional elements in claim 1 add meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea so that they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The arguments merely relate to the advantages of the method claimed , which relates to the advantages of a commercial activity.
As analyzed in detail in paragraph 3 above, all the additional elements of claim 1 have been considered and are directed to receiving information and providing information on a blockchain platform are mere data gathering, data storing such as a smart contract, and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) and implementing functions that mount to mental processes . The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions, as analyzed above. The use of a smart contract stored in a blockchain in processing the sales order is recited in a nominal manner which is a long-standing practice of using smart contracts for commercial transactions before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in the use of smart contracts. Accordingly, individually or even in combination, 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 and are not indicative of any of the following meaningful limits, see “ MPEP 2106.04 (d)::
• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a).
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b).
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c).and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Step 2B:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, because the additional limitations of claim 1 do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments, “ The Examiner failed to properly apply the Step 2B analysis because the additional elements do not merely provide action(s) that are related to instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. …….. However, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that "a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." As discussed above, the additional elements as recited in the claims do not merely provide action(s) that are related to instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Thus, Applicant respectfully believes that the claims of the present application recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. For at least the foregoing reasons, the limitations as recited in the pending claims, including independent claim 1 as well as its dependent claims 2-17, when analyzed as a whole, are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are respectfully requested. It is now believed that the application is in condition for allowance and such allowance is respectfully requested.”, are not persuasive, because Step 2B part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-10, 13-14, 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and the existing concept of using a blockchain platform previously known to the industry, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The steps of storing and using smart contracts in a blockchain for processing sales orders amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Additional elements of providing the number P of the product to the Fintech entity and providing user-specific reward to a corresponding user wallet found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary transmitting data. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, and transmitting/providing steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1-10, 13-14 and 17 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
7. It is to be noted that the Applicant has not filed an IDS.
Best prior art of record not considered but pertinent to the claimed invention:
(i) Tali et al. [US 2020/0329018 A1 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 09/18/2025 ; see para 0024] describes systems and methods providing how the communications network, the private blockchain network, the tokens, smart contracts, and the software management grants users and vendors access to the private blockchain network during point of sale transaction in order to access a particular block on the blockchain that contains an individual's geo-location certified biometrically of user proximity to the point of sale and this . geo-location validation is used by vendors to approve or turn down a pending transaction.
(ii) Pourhamid cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 [US20040210505 A1; see claim 1] describes a method and system for converting purchase credit awards resulting from a purchase by a consumer of goods or service into ownership of stocks in the awards issuing company.
(iii) Dhodapkar [cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 US 2023/0252470A1; see paragraph 0227] describes providing incentives in the form of a purchase or allocation of stock, cryptocurrency, or other asset, a discount, a reward, a non-fungible token (NFT), or the like upon satisfaction of a condition.
(vi) Deuel et al. cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 [US 20220358186 A1; see Abstract and paras 0016—0017] describes techniques for generating and issuing secondary digital assets such as NFTs based on ownership of primary assets which can be owned company’s stocks, wherein the second asset includes a token and an associated digital asset, and where information relating to the second asset is included in a blockchain.
(v) Mullen et al. cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 [US 2022/0383303 A1; see paras 0003 and 0133] describes utilizing a private blockchain for multi-layer NFTs and providing an interface for redeeming grouping of digital collectibles (e.g., NFTs) for one or more awards (e.g., one or more achievement NFTs). A consumer can be asked to redeem or destroy qualifying NFTs to earn a reward.
NFL references:
(vi) Chen, Hongyin et al. “ABSNFT: Securitization and Repurchase Scheme for Non-Fungible Tokens Based on Game Theoretical Analysis”; Publication Date: 2022-02-04; arXiv.org; retrieved from IP.COM on 05152025 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025; describes that the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) is an application of blockchain technology having a large market scale and multiple practical standards, with several limitations of the existing mechanism in NFT markets exist. The article proposes a securitization and repurchase scheme for NFT which includes that a participant owing a portion of NFT to repurchase other shares to obtain the complete ownership, and the participants can strategically bid during the acquisition process.
(vii) T. Dimitriou, "Privacy-respecting rewards for participatory sensing applications," 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Barcelona, Spain, 2018, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com on 09/16/2025 and cited in the Final Rejection mailed 09/18/2025 ,describes a useful functionality of rewarding users for the sensed data they submit to a utility provider, thereby allowing participants to earn and redeem incentives in a way that cannot be linked to their actions or identities.
Foreign references:
(viii) WO 2013173799 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 [See Abstract and claim 9] describes a system and method performed by a server be detecting a user interaction of purchasing a product and determines if the user is eligible to receive at least a portion of the reward associated with the detected user interaction.
(ix) KR 20190123545 [see pages 5-6] A describes a blockchain network 200 may generate a transaction transaction 519 when the sales order transaction 511 and the purchase order transaction 515 match the blockchain 220, that is if the product ID, sale price, and product association information of the sales order transaction 511 match the product ID, purchase price, and product association conditions of the purchase order transaction 515, the transaction
transaction 519 is generated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688