DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The claims filed 8/19/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, applicant states that the process of determining whether to provide a verification indicator for display, and the subsequent display of the verification indicator improves online commerce interfaces, thereby providing a practical application. Applicant states that the claims provide for making a comprehensive and unbiased determination whether the digital component is safe to transact with. Applicant further states that the claims provide a technical solution by improving the online commerce interface to include a verification indicator with the associated digital component, which indicates that the digital component is safe to transact with.
Examiner notes, however, that determining whether to provide a verification indicator for display and then displaying the verification indicator only involves providing a customer with information indicating that a merchant is safe to transact with or whether the goods are authentic. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem, but rather a commercial or business process, as this type of information is information that would normally be useful to a customer making a decision in the course of a commercial or business transaction to reduce their risk of engaging in a fraudulent transaction. The display of this indicator does not provide any technical functionality, but only conveys information related to the business or commercial transaction to a user. Therefore, these features do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. The fact that the information is displayed in a commerce interface, or that the information is related to a digital component, also does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it only involves using a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1 and 3-8 are directed to a method, claims 9 and 11-16 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors, and claims 17 and 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite receiving a submission of content, and reviewing the transaction history of the owner of the content to determine their trustworthiness based on whether they have engaged in fraudulent behavior, and presenting the content an indication of their trustworthiness in response to a request, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, . . . a submission of a . . . component,” “receiving . . . from a wallet owner, authorization to access a transaction history of a . . . wallet, wherein the wallet owner is associated with the . . . component,” “determining, . . . based on the transaction history, factors comprising: whether a party to one or more transactions of the transaction history is a previously identified decoy, and whether one or more transactions of the transaction history utilized deceitful contracts,” “associating, . . . based on the factors, a verification indicator with the . . . component, wherein the verification indicator provides an indication that at least one of the wallet owner or . . . component is safe to transact with,” “receiving . . . a request for . . . content,” and “providing for output . . . in response to the request, the . . . component and associated verification indicator,” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process of assessing the trustworthiness of a seller or provider of content based on an evaluation of the transaction history of the seller or provider of content, which is fundamental economic practice, as well as a commercial or legal interaction. The claims also fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they describe a process in which information related to a transaction history of a seller or provider of content is evaluated to make a determination regarding their trustworthiness, and an indication of the trustworthiness is provided. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims, such as the use of one or more processors, a digital component, a digital wallet, a system comprising one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor to perform the steps, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “receiving, . . . a submission of a . . . component,” “receiving . . . from a wallet owner, authorization to access a transaction history of a . . . wallet, wherein the wallet owner is associated with the . . . component,” “determining, . . . based on the transaction history, factors comprising: whether a party to one or more transactions of the transaction history is a previously identified decoy, and whether one or more transactions of the transaction history utilized deceitful contracts,” “associating, . . . based on the factors, a verification indicator with the . . . component, wherein the verification indicator provides an indication that at least one of the wallet owner or . . . component is safe to transact with,” “receiving . . . a request for . . . content,” and “providing for output . . . in response to the request, the . . . component and associated verification indicator.” Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of using one or more processors, a digital component, a digital wallet, a system comprising one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving a submission of content, and reviewing the transaction history of the owner of the content to determine their trustworthiness based on whether they have engaged in fraudulent behavior, and presenting the content an indication of their trustworthiness in response to a request. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “receiving, . . . a submission of a . . . component,” “receiving . . . from a wallet owner, authorization to access a transaction history of a . . . wallet, wherein the wallet owner is associated with the . . . component,” “determining, . . . based on the transaction history, factors comprising: whether a party to one or more transactions of the transaction history is a previously identified decoy, and whether one or more transactions of the transaction history utilized deceitful contracts,” “associating, . . . based on the factors, a verification indicator with the . . . component, wherein the verification indicator provides an indication that at least one of the wallet owner or . . . component is safe to transact with,” “receiving . . . a request for . . . content,” and “providing for output . . . in response to the request, the . . . component and associated verification indicator.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving a submission of content, and reviewing the transaction history of the owner of the content to determine their trustworthiness based on whether they have engaged in fraudulent behavior, and presenting the content an indication of their trustworthiness in response to a request. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 further describe the abstract idea of receiving a submission of content, and reviewing the transaction history of the owner of the content to determine their trustworthiness based on whether they have engaged in fraudulent behavior, and presenting the content an indication of their trustworthiness in response to a request. Specifically, claims 3, 11, and 19 describe identifying other parties to a transaction in the transaction history and using that information to evaluate the trustworthiness, and claims 4, 12, and 20 evaluating the type of the contracts in the transaction history and using that information to evaluate the trustworthiness. These claims recite features that are directed to the abstract idea because they describe the types of information used to evaluate the trustworthiness. Claim 5-6 and 13-14 describe verifying ownership of the component, which is part of the abstract idea as it involves using the transaction history to verify that the user that is offering the component for sale is the rightful owner. Claims 7-8 and 15-16 describe characteristics of the digital component and the indicator, but do not require any steps or functions to be performed. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson, et al. (US 2023/0006976) (“Jakobsson”) in view of Holbrook, et al. (US 2023/0306088) (“Holbrook”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Jakobsson discloses a method, a system comprising one or more processor configured to perform the method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or processors, cause the one or more processor to perform the method, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a submission of a digital component (Jakobsson ¶¶ 20, 268-271, 278, 330, 332, 335, 405);
receiving, by the one or more processors from a wallet owner, authorization to access a transaction history of a digital wallet, wherein the wallet owner is associated with the digital component (Jakobsson ¶¶ 66, 149-151, 193, 196-200);
determining, by the one or more processors based on the transaction history, factors comprising: whether a party to one or more transactions of the transaction history is a previously identified decoy (Jakobsson ¶¶ 22, 64-65, 104, 121, 123, 268-270, 326, 330, 419), and whether one or more transactions of the transaction history utilized deceitful contracts (Jakobsson ¶¶ 121, 406, 414, 421, 428-429);
associating, by the one or more processors based on the factors, a verification indicator with the digital component, wherein the verification indicator provides an indication that at least one of the wallet owner or digital component is safe to transact with (Jakobsson ¶¶ 278-279, 331-332);
receiving, by the one or more processor, a request for digital content (Jakobsson ¶¶ 20, 56, 144, 263, 269, 282, 410, 414); and
providing, for output, by the one or more processors, in response to the request, the digital content and associated verification indicator (Jakobsson ¶¶ 26, 267, 279, 283, 331-332, 414).
Jakobsson does not specifically disclose that the output is via a display.
Holbrook discloses that output of content and an associated verification indicator is performed via a display (Holbrook Figures 13, 17; ¶¶ 126-128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jakobsson to include output of the content and an associated verification indicator being performed via a display, as disclosed in Holbrook, in order to allow a user to see the verification status of a content item to help prevent fraud by the use of fake content (Holbrook ¶¶ 31-32, 126-128).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Jakobsson discloses that when determining whether the one or more transactions of the transaction history is the previously identified decoy, the method further comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of a party to the respective transaction other than the wallet owner; and determining, based on the identified identify of the party, whether the party corresponds to one or more previously identified decoys (Jakobsson ¶¶ 22, 64-65, 104, 121, 123, 268-270, 326, 330, 419).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Jakobsson discloses that when determining whether the one or more transactions utilized deceitful contracts, the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, one or more types of contracts; and comparing, by the one or more processors, the determined one or more types of contracts to smart contracts, wherein when a type of contract does not correspond to a smart contract, the type of contract is a deceitful contract (Jakobsson ¶¶ 121, 406, 414, 421, 428-429).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Jakobsson discloses verifying, by the one or more processors based on the transaction history, ownership of the digital component (Jakobsson ¶¶ 22, 64-65, 104, 121, 123, 268-270, 326, 330, 419).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Jakobsson discloses that verifying ownership of the ownership digital component includes: identifying, by the one or more processors based on the transaction history, an owner of the digital component; and comparing, by the one or more processors, the identified owner and the wallet owner (Jakobsson ¶¶ 22, 64-65, 104, 121, 123, 268-270, 326, 330, 419).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Jakobsson discloses the digital component is an advertisement related to a non-fungible token (Jakobsson ¶¶ 201, 205-206, 263).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Jakobsson discloses that the indicator signifies that the wallet owner has been verified (Jakobsson ¶¶ 279, 331-332).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
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, John W. Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights