DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Application
This Communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendments, Remarks, and Arguments filed on the 3rd day of May, 2025. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Under MPEP 2106, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (step 1). However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea (step 2). While claims 1, 19, and 20, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), certain methods of organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions and behaviors and managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that claims 1-20 recite a provenance system for tracing licensing of targeted artificial intelligence systems, comprising: memory storing a training dataset that satisfies a target artist configuration by requiring that at least some training samples in the training dataset are sourced from a target artist, wherein the target artist configuration characterizes a work of the target artist; training logic, having access to the memory, and configured to train an artificial intelligence system on the training dataset, and to generate a trained version of the artificial intelligence system, wherein the trained version of the artificial intelligence system is configured to construct an output that satisfies that target artist configuration; deployment logic configured to make available the trained version of the artificial intelligence system on a blockchain network; and provenance logic configured to license the trained version of the artificial intelligence system to a plurality of licensees, and to validate that licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system satisfy the target artist configuration which is directed to concepts that are performed mentally and a product of human mental work. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of receiving information from users related to a work, processing the information, and displaying and storing the results of the analysis, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Alternatively, Examiner notes that claims 1-20 recite a provenance system for tracing licensing of targeted artificial intelligence systems, comprising: memory storing a training dataset that satisfies a target artist configuration by requiring that at least some training samples in the training dataset are sourced from a target artist, wherein the target artist configuration characterizes a work of the target artist; training logic, having access to the memory, and configured to train an artificial intelligence system on the training dataset, and to generate a trained version of the artificial intelligence system, wherein the trained version of the artificial intelligence system is configured to construct an output that satisfies that target artist configuration; deployment logic configured to make available the trained version of the artificial intelligence system on a blockchain network; and provenance logic configured to license the trained version of the artificial intelligence system to a plurality of licensees, and to validate that licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system satisfy the target artist configuration, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in grouping “II” in that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as product and artwork management through rights distributed in lease agreements stored within the sytsem. This is merely further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not further limit the claimed invention to render the claims patentable subject matter. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite standard processes found in standard practice in the monetization of intellectual property. This is common practice when trying to distribute works of art to the public for lease and use through various rights. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as lease authentication, and rights management, and the steps of the claims involve organizing human activity, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Additionally, Examiner notes that the claims contain language directed to “storing a training dataset that satisfies a target artist configuration by requiring that at least some training samples in the training dataset are sourced from a target artist, wherein the target artist configuration characterizes a work of the target artist; training logic, having access to the memory, and configured to train an artificial intelligence system on the training dataset, and to generate a trained version of the artificial intelligence system, wherein the trained version of the artificial intelligence system is configured to construct an output that satisfies that target artist configuration”, which amounts to, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system requires specific mathematical calculations (training the algorithm using stored legal information related to clients, cases, jurisdiction, etc.). “the AIsystem 222 can be trained using backpropagation- based gradient update techniques. Example gradient descent techniques that can be used for training the AIsystem 222 include stochastic gradient descent, batch gradient descent, and mini- batch gradient descent. Some examples of gradient descent optimization algorithms that can be used to train the AIsystem 222 are Momentum, Nesterov accelerated gradient, Adagrad, Adadelta, RMSprop, Adam, AdaMax, Nadam, and AMSGrad” (See at least Specification ¶ 79) and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, 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 claimed invention falls within the mental process/certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, and steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The conclusion that the claim recites an abstract idea within the groupings of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) remains grounded in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the specification. For example, [App. Spec ¶ 85], “to publish, distribute, license, sell, or otherwise provide and make available the target artist's work”. Accordingly, the Examiner submits claims 1-20, recite an abstract idea based on the language identified in claims 1-20, and the abstract ideas previously identified based on that language that remains consistent with the groupings of Step 2A Prong 1 of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(1).
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to a method instructing the reader to implement the identified method of organizing human activity of legal interactions and risk management (i.e., transaction and license management) on generically claimed computer structure. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as “blockchain”, “training data set”, “training logic”, “memory”, and “artificial intelligence system” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure which states that the computing device “one or more of the functional blocks (e.g., modules, processors, or memories) can be implemented in a single piece of hardware (e.g., a general-purpose signal processor or a block of random access memory, hard disk, or the like) or multiple pieces of hardware.”. (App. Spec. ¶ 36).
Accordingly, the claimed “system” read in light of the specification employs any wide range of possible devices comprising a number of components that are “well-known” and included in an indiscriminate “blockchain”, “training data set”, “training logic”, “memory”, and “artificial intelligence system” (e.g., processing device, modules). Thus, the claimed structure amounts to appending generic computer elements to abstract idea comprising the body of the claim. The computing elements are only involved at a general, high level, and do not have the particular role within any of the functions but to be a computer-implemented method using a generically claimed “blockchain”, “training data set”, “training logic”, “memory”, and “artificial intelligence system” and even basic, generic recitations that imply use of the computer such as storing information via servers would add little if anything to the abstract idea.
Similarly, reciting the abstract idea as software functions used to program a generic computer is not significant or meaningful: generic computers are programmed with software to perform various functions every day. A programmed generic computer is not a particular machine and by itself does not amount to an inventive concept because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, it is not relevant that a human may perform a task differently from a computer. It is necessarily true that a human might apply an abstract idea in a different manner from a computer. What matters is the application, “stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” will not render an abstract idea non-abstract. Tranxition v. Lenovo, Nos. 2015-1907, -1941, -1958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), slip op. at 7-8.
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic computing elements recited in claims 1-20, is the same as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic computerised system. Therefore, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (2106.04(d)). Under the MPEP 2106.05, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims 1-20, does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-18 are directed to further embellishments of the abstract idea in that they are directed to aspects of the central theme of the abstract idea identified above, as well as being directed to data processing and transmission which the courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities (see at least M.P.E.P. 2106.05(g)). Data transmission is one of the most basic and fundamental uses there are for a generic computing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. The examiner takes the position that simply appending the judicial exception with such a well understood step of data transmission is not going to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220366494 to Cella et al. (hereinafter Cella).
Referring to Claim 1, 19, and 20 (substantially similar in scope and language), Cella discloses a provenance system for tracing licensing of targeted artificial intelligence systems (see at least Cella: ¶ 383), comprising:
memory storing a training dataset that satisfies a target artist configuration by requiring that at least some training samples in the training dataset are sourced from a target artist (see at least Cella: ¶ 367, and ¶ 424 “Training may include presenting the neural network with one or more training data sets that represent values, such as sensor data, event data, parameter data, and other types of data (including the many types described throughout this disclosure), as well as one or more indicators of an outcome, such as an outcome of a process, an outcome of a calculation, an outcome of an event, an outcome of an activity, or the like”; see also Cella: ¶ 494 “This may include use of robotic process automation to learn on a training data set of interactions of humans with interfaces, such as graphical user interfaces, of one or more computer programs, such as dashboards, control systems, and other systems that are used to manage an energy and compute management facility”; see also Cella: ¶ 533, and ¶ 987 “In embodiments, the AI system 17480 may be trained by one or more transaction experts to develop the machine learned model by which the AI system 17480 operates to perform AI-related functions. Examples of transaction experts that may at least partially train the AI system 17480 include agents, brokers, traders, attorneys, financial advisors, auditors, accountants, bankers, marketers, advertisers, exchange operators, buyers, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers/developers. The AI system 17480 may be trained by any suitable machine learning algorithm, and by any suitable training data set”; see also Cella: ¶ 1266 “an artificial intelligence system 3448 may be trained to learn to determine and present new configurations for offerings 4202 based on a training data set created by human experts”; see at least Cella: ¶ 1747 “The method may further include the step 11502 of classifying a condition of a set of issuers using the collected information and a model, wherein the model is trained using the training data set of outcomes related to the set of issuers. The method may further include processing events relevant to at least one of a value, a condition, or an ownership of at least one asset of the set of assets (step 11503)”; see also Cella: ¶ 1764-1765 “An event relevant to at least one of a value, a condition, and an ownership of at least one asset may be processed 11708. An action related to the at least one transaction may be undertaken in response to the event 11710.”; see also Cella: ¶ 1898-1899, and 1902-1918: discussing the use of machine learning, training models, etc., within the marketplace),
Cella further discloses wherein the target artist configuration characterizes a work of the target artist (see at least Cella: ¶ 20 “information can include valuable and sensitive information, such as trade secrets, know how, patented material, and works of authorship”; see also Cella: ¶ 919 “instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may include, for example… works of authorship”);
training logic, having access to the memory, and configured to train an artificial intelligence system on the training dataset, and to generate a trained version of the artificial intelligence system, wherein the trained version of the artificial intelligence system is configured to construct an output that satisfies that target artist configuration (see at least Cella: ¶ 1726-1727 “The model 11212 may be trained using the training data set of outcomes 11206 related to the entities.”; see at least Cella: ¶ 367, and ¶ 424 “Training may include presenting the neural network with one or more training data sets that represent values, such as sensor data, event data, parameter data, and other types of data (including the many types described throughout this disclosure), as well as one or more indicators of an outcome, such as an outcome of a process, an outcome of a calculation, an outcome of an event, an outcome of an activity, or the like”; see also Cella: ¶ 494 “This may include use of robotic process automation to learn on a training data set of interactions of humans with interfaces, such as graphical user interfaces, of one or more computer programs, such as dashboards, control systems, and other systems that are used to manage an energy and compute management facility”; see also Cella: ¶ 533, and ¶ 987 “In embodiments, the AI system 17480 may be trained by one or more transaction experts to develop the machine learned model by which the AI system 17480 operates to perform AI-related functions. Examples of transaction experts that may at least partially train the AI system 17480 include agents, brokers, traders, attorneys, financial advisors, auditors, accountants, bankers, marketers, advertisers, exchange operators, buyers, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers/developers. The AI system 17480 may be trained by any suitable machine learning algorithm, and by any suitable training data set”; see also Cella: ¶ 1266 “an artificial intelligence system 3448 may be trained to learn to determine and present new configurations for offerings 4202 based on a training data set created by human experts”; see at least Cella: ¶ 1747 “The method may further include the step 11502 of classifying a condition of a set of issuers using the collected information and a model, wherein the model is trained using the training data set of outcomes related to the set of issuers. The method may further include processing events relevant to at least one of a value, a condition, or an ownership of at least one asset of the set of assets (step 11503)”; see also Cella: ¶ 1764-1765 “An event relevant to at least one of a value, a condition, and an ownership of at least one asset may be processed 11708. An action related to the at least one transaction may be undertaken in response to the event 11710.”; see also Cella: ¶ 1898-1899, and 1902-1918: discussing the use of machine learning, training models, etc., within the marketplace);
deployment logic configured to make available the trained version of the artificial intelligence system on a blockchain network (see at least Cella: ¶ 1351 “the blockchain and smart contract platform”; see at least Cella: ¶ 274 “computational services may be included as a part of one or more services, platforms, or microservices, such as blockchain services”; see at least Cella: ¶ 346 and 1197 “An example system may include wherein at least one of the plurality of data sources is a blockchain circuit, and wherein the adaptive intelligence circuit interprets the information from the blockchain circuit utilizing the adaptive intelligence circuit”); and
provenance logic configured to license the trained version of the artificial intelligence system to a plurality of licensees, and to validate that licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system satisfy the target artist configuration (see at least Cella: ¶ 383-385 “Referring to FIG. 3, the platform 100 may include capabilities for transaction execution that involve one or more distributed ledgers 113 and one or more smart contracts 103, where the distributed ledgers 113 and smart contracts 103 are configured to enable specialized transaction features for specific transaction domains. One such domain is intellectual property, which transactions are highly complex, involving licensing terms and conditions that are somewhat difficult to manage, as compared to more straightforward sales of goods or services.”; see also Cella: ¶ 537, 545-546, 549 “FIG. 139 illustrates an example system 13900 configured for electronically facilitating licensing of one or more personality rights of a licensor, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure”; see also Cella: ¶ 553, 554, 557, 566, 574, 580, 598, 929, and 930).
Referring to Claim 2. The provenance system of clause 1, wherein the provenance logic is further configured to assign a parent non-fungible token (NFT) to the trained version of the artificial intelligence system (see at least Cella: ¶ 1016-1025 “knowledge token 17038 is a non-fungible token. Non-fungible token or NFT represents a digital knowledge asset that is unique, or one-of-a-kind and has at least a unique identifier, and/or other distinguishable asset-specific information”).
Referring to Claim 3. The provenance system of clause 2, wherein the parent NFT is configured to be traced back from offspring NFTs that are assigned to the licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system (see at least Cella: ¶ 1016-1025 “knowledge token 17038 is a non-fungible token. Non-fungible token or NFT represents a digital knowledge asset that is unique, or one-of-a-kind and has at least a unique identifier, and/or other distinguishable asset-specific information”; see at least Cella: ¶ 356 “The term access right (and derivatives or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe an entitlement to acquire or possess a property, article, or other thing of value”; see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, and/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 4. The provenance system of clause 2, wherein the provenance logic is further configured to validate that downstream results of the licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system satisfy the target artist configuration (see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, and/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 5. The provenance system of clause 4, wherein the parent NFT is configured to be traced back from offspring NFTs that are assigned to the downstream results (see at least Cella: ¶ 1016-1025 “knowledge token 17038 is a non-fungible token. Non-fungible token or NFT represents a digital knowledge asset that is unique, or one-of-a-kind and has at least a unique identifier, and/or other distinguishable asset-specific information”; see at least Cella: ¶ 356 “The term access right (and derivatives or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe an entitlement to acquire or possess a property, article, or other thing of value”; see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, and/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 6. The provenance system of clause 5, wherein the downstream results are digital assets generated using the licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system (see at least Cella: ¶ 1016-1025 “knowledge token 17038 is a non-fungible token. Non-fungible token or NFT represents a digital knowledge asset that is unique, or one-of-a-kind and has at least a unique identifier, and/or other distinguishable asset-specific information”; see at least Cella: ¶ 356 “The term access right (and derivatives or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe an entitlement to acquire or possess a property, article, or other thing of value”; see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, and/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 7. The provenance system of clause 6, wherein the downstream results are generated by processing new inputs through the licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system, and generating new outputs that apply the target artist configuration to the new input (see at least Cella: ¶ 621 “the digital twin system 15500 can calculate the effects of the changed property and may update the digital twin and any other digital twins affected by the change of the property”; see also Cella: ¶ 627, 631, and 649: updating the records).
Referring to Claim 8. The provenance system of clause 7, wherein the new inputs are new images, and the new outputs are reconstructed versions of the new images overlaid with the target artist configuration (see at least Cella: ¶ 621 “the digital twin system 15500 can calculate the effects of the changed property and may update the digital twin and any other digital twins affected by the change of the property”; see also Cella: ¶ 627, 631, and 649: updating the records; see also Cella: ¶ 652 “an augmented view that overlays data on the digital twin, and/or any other suitable view types”; see at least Cella: ¶ 801).
Referring to Claim 9. The provenance system of clause 5, wherein the downstream results are digital assets generated using further trained versions of the licensed copies of the trained version of the artificial intelligence system (see at least Cella: ¶ 383-385 “Referring to FIG. 3, the platform 100 may include capabilities for transaction execution that involve one or more distributed ledgers 113 and one or more smart contracts 103, where the distributed ledgers 113 and smart contracts 103 are configured to enable specialized transaction features for specific transaction domains. One such domain is intellectual property, which transactions are highly complex, involving licensing terms and conditions that are somewhat difficult to manage, as compared to more straightforward sales of goods or services.”; see also Cella: ¶ 537, 545-546, 549 “FIG. 139 illustrates an example system 13900 configured for electronically facilitating licensing of one or more personality rights of a licensor, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure”; see also Cella: ¶ 553, 554, 557, 566, 574, 580, 598, 929, and 930).
Referring to Claim 10. The provenance system of clause 9, wherein the downstream results are generated by further training the licensed copies of the trained versions of the artificial intelligence system on a further training dataset that satisfies a further target configuration, and generating further trained versions of the artificial intelligence system, wherein the further trained versions of the artificial intelligence system are configured to construct outputs that satisfy a combination of the target artist configuration and the further target configuration (see at least Cella: ¶ 383-385 “Referring to FIG. 3, the platform 100 may include capabilities for transaction execution that involve one or more distributed ledgers 113 and one or more smart contracts 103, where the distributed ledgers 113 and smart contracts 103 are configured to enable specialized transaction features for specific transaction domains. One such domain is intellectual property, which transactions are highly complex, involving licensing terms and conditions that are somewhat difficult to manage, as compared to more straightforward sales of goods or services.”; see also Cella: ¶ 537, 545-546, 549 “FIG. 139 illustrates an example system 13900 configured for electronically facilitating licensing of one or more personality rights of a licensor, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure”; see also Cella: ¶ 553, 554, 557, 566, 574, 580, 598, 929, and 930).
Referring to Claim 11. The provenance system of clause 10, wherein the downstream results are generated by new inputs through the further trained versions of the artificial intelligence system, and generating new outputs that apply the combination of the target artist configuration and the further target configuration to the new inputs (see at least Cella: ¶ 621 “the digital twin system 15500 can calculate the effects of the changed property and may update the digital twin and any other digital twins affected by the change of the property”; see also Cella: ¶ 627, 631, and 649: updating the records).
Referring to Claim 12. The provenance system of clause 11, wherein the further training dataset requires that at least some training samples in the further training dataset are sourced from a further target artist, wherein the further target configuration characterizes a work of the further target artist (see at least Cella: ¶ 621 “the digital twin system 15500 can calculate the effects of the changed property and may update the digital twin and any other digital twins affected by the change of the property”; see also Cella: ¶ 627, 631, and 649: updating the records; see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, and/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 13. The provenance system of clause 12, wherein the further target configuration conditions generation of the new outputs on one or more user-supplied parameters (see also Cella: ¶ 359 “The term satisfaction of parameters or conditions (and other derivatives, forms, or variations) as utilized herein may be understood broadly to describe completion, presence or proof of parameters or conditions that have been met”; see at least Cella: ¶ 415 “smart contracts, such as ones embodying terms relating to intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, instruction sets, algorithmic logic, and the like may embody or include contract terms, which may include terms and conditions for options, royalty stacking terms, field exclusivity, partial exclusivity, pooling of intellectual property, standards terms (such as relating to essential and non-essential patent usage), technology transfer terms, consulting service terms, update terms, support terms, maintenance terms, derivative works terms, copying terms, and performance-related rights or metrics, among many others”; see also Cella: ¶ 1002 “the knowledge distribution system 16802 may include a market management system 17486 configured to establish a market for selling and/or reselling currency tokens and/or instances of the digital knowledge 16804. The market may be configured such that wrapped and/or tokenized instances of the digital knowledge 16804 may be resold without being unwrapped. The market may be established and configured as a spot market, a secondary market, ad/or a futures/derivatives market. Futures and derivatives resold on the futures/derivatives market may include options, futures, and other derivatives. The knowledge distribution system 16802 may establish and/or monitor secondary markets, ancillary markets, forward markets, and the like in addition to resale markets for digital currency and instances of the digital knowledge 16804.”; see also Cella: ¶ 110, 117, and 1147).
Referring to Claim 16. The provenance system of clause 13, wherein the user-supplied parameters include a speech type (see at least Cella: ¶ 366, 1274, and 1898-1999).
Referring to Claim 17. The provenance system of clause 13, wherein the user-supplied parameters include an art type (see at least Cella: ¶ 366, 1274, and 1898-1899).
Referring to Claim 18. The provenance system of clause 13, wherein the user-supplied parameters include a current state of the blockchain network (see at least Cella: ¶ 952, 1345, and 1811).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220366494 to Cella et al. (hereinafter Cella) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210218565 to Flatow.
Referring to Claim 14, Cella teaches the provenance system of clause 13; Cella fails to state wherein the user-supplied parameters include a random seed.
However, Flatow, which talks about a digital asset management system, teaches it is known for the management system of digital assets to incorporate and use random seed when processing and calculating information related to assets (see at least Flatow: ¶ 118-119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the feature of using random seed when processing and calculating information related to assets (as disclosed by Flatow) into the method may include identifying an opportunity for a new marketplace, receiving marketplace opportunity data, determining configuration parameters, and determining a feasibility of implementing the new marketplace configuration (as disclosed by Cella). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the feature of using random seed when processing and calculating information related to assets because it would provide a system for tracking an asset (see Flatow ¶ 16).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the feature of using random seed when processing and calculating information related to assets (as disclosed by Flatow) into the method may include identifying an opportunity for a new marketplace, receiving marketplace opportunity data, determining configuration parameters, and determining a feasibility of implementing the new marketplace configuration (as disclosed by Cella), because the claimed invention is merely a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by adding the well-known feature of using random seed when processing and calculating information related to assets into the method may include identifying an opportunity for a new marketplace, receiving marketplace opportunity data, determining configuration parameters, and determining a feasibility of implementing the new marketplace configuration). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination of Cella and Flatow teaches the provenance system of clause 14, including wherein the random seed is based on a Mandelbrot set (see at least Flatow: ¶ 82, 90, 140, 184-186, 191, 198-199, 217-218, and 228-230).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. 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, Nate Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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 pate