DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on December 11, 2025, claims 1-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 12/11/2025. In this action claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (US Pub. No. 20230006976) and Rodriguez (US Pub. No. 20220198034) in further view of Tremblay et al. (US Pub. No. 20220343250). The Rodriguez reference has been added to address the amendment of identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 6, applicant argues “More specifically, the claims have been amended to further clarify features that include executing blockchain-specific processes. Applicant submits that such blockchain processes that may include operations such as identifying a token stored in a smart contract within a distributed ledger, processing permissions embedded in the token, cryptographically updating values on the ledger, and interacting with decentralized identity systems, cannot be performed mentally by a human or with pencil and paper.”
Examiner’s Reply:
The steps of determining and identifying preferences can perform within the human mind. A human would be able to iteratively follow these steps along with any needed additional elements while using a computer as a tool (for storing preferences for customer relation management).
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 7, applicant argues” Moreover, Applicant submits that even if it is asserted that the claims recited an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claimed features are integrated in a practical application and recite significantly more than the abstract idea. As similarly discussed above, the amended claims recite regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 7, applicant argues “Moreover, Applicant submits that the clarified features of the currently amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, such integration with a public trust ledger may improve the security with which such data is stored and managed, and thus may provide an overall enhancement of security associated with such information the integration of preference information as well as updates to preference information with specific blockchain operations associated with a public trust ledger. Such integration provides secure, user- controlled preference aggregation, storage, management, and sharing across decentralized environments. Accordingly, such integration of the preference information into the public trust ledger enables leveraging smart contract-based permissioning as well as cryptographic and security capabilities of the public trust ledger architecture for storage and management of such preference information, and in a manner that may be tied to one or more service providers. In this way, the claimed features improve data security of user accounts and preference data, and thus provide concrete technological improvements, and do not merely recite instructions to apply an idea on a computer.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Identifying and updating preferences to understand customers is not a technological improvement. The claims merely use ledgers in updating preferences over time. The determination, updating, and identification of preference data in documents is a computer-implemented abstract mental process.
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 non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 1-12), a system (claim 13-19), non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 20 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determining a public trust ledger identifier associated with the interaction message (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining an identifier);
identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying a token);
determining an updated preference value based at least in part on the digital interaction between the database system and remote computing device, the updated preference value identifying an update to stated preferences or revealed preferences included in the preference information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining a preference); and
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 13, and 20:
receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering);
transmitting via the communication interface an instruction to the public trust ledger to update the non-fungible preference token to include the updated preference value such that the public trust ledger is updated to store the updated stated preferences or revealed preferences (recites insignificant extra solution activity of updating a token).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the interaction message includes transmitting to the remote computing device a content message, the content message identifying content selected based on one or more preferences reflected in the non-fungible preference token (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
evaluating one or more requested actions based on one or more permissions stored in association with the non-fungible preference token (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by evaluating an action); and
performing the one or more requested actions when it is determined that the one or more requested actions are permitted (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by performing an action).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein identifying the non-fungible preference token comprises communicating with an identity service, the identity service configured to perform zero-knowledge identity verification of identity claims associated with the public trust ledger (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying a token).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identity service is a decentralized identity service (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying a token).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identity service is a centralized identity service (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying a token).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the non-fungible preference token is associated with a plurality of preference values including the updated preference value, and wherein the updated preference value is a revealed preference value determined based on one or more actions performed by the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying a token).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the plurality of preference values includes a stated preference value that characterizes a preference determined based on user input provided by the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining a preference).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the public trust ledger is a blockchain (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by determining an identifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the database system is configured to provide on-demand database services to a plurality of entities via the internet (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering)
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the on-demand database services include customer relations management services (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering)
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the digital interaction includes a request transmitted from the remote computing device to a service provider, the service provider accessing the customer relations management services provided by the database system (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (US Pub. No. 20230006976) and Rodriguez (US Pub. No. 20220198034) in further view of Tremblay et al. (US Pub. No. 20220343250).
With respect to claim 1, Jakobsson et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device (Paragraph 131 discloses data reporting the occurrence of NFT event interactions data reporting the content of NFT transactions, data reporting the content of media wallet interactions, and/or data reporting the occurrence of media wallet interactions and Paragraph 163 discloses remote off-ledger resources), the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities;
determining a public trust ledger identifier associated with the interaction message (Paragraph 214 discloses Some NFTs may be referred to as anchored NFTs (or anchored tokens), used to tie some element, such as a physical entity, to an identifier. Of this classification, one sub-category may be used to tie users' real-world identities and/or identifiers to a system identifier, such as a public key). Jakobsson et al. does not disclose identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger.
However, Rodriguez teaches identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger (Paragraph 100 discloses a user interface is provided to serve as a “personal privacy and marketing control panel,” where individual users record their preferences with instructions on how the users would like their data to be used. In one embodiment, the user may specify which preferences may be shared with which preference centers or entities, for instance, by identifying categories of entities and Paragraph 101 discloses users may manage their privacy preferences that cover the following uses: temporal, spatial, functional, identity, social, tracking and aggregation);
determining an updated preference value based at least in part on the digital interaction between the database system and remote computing device, the updated preference value identifying an update to stated preferences or revealed preferences included in the preference information (Paragraph 124 discloses architecture 600 allows for data and preferences created or updated by a user to be secured and encrypted inside a container 616. When a user creates or updates data and preferences using the application in the client device, in some embodiments, an API call to an API 620 of a container controller 618 stored on the client device is executed); and
transmitting via the communication interface an instruction to the public trust ledger to update the non-fungible preference token to include the updated preference value such that the public trust ledger is updated to store the updated stated preferences or revealed preferences (Paragraph 289 discloses Upon the approval 350 of the central authority, the now updated blockchain 360 can reflect the added block 320 and Paragraph 290 discloses a data container access and control blockchain architecture 2800 in accordance with various embodiments of this disclosure. The architecture 2800 includes the master data controller 710 and associated master data preferences 719 and access and usage log 725, and the edge data controller 718. As described in the various embodiments herein, data containers 716 can store data and/or digital assets such as text, images, audio, or other data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. with Rodriguez to include identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledgers. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 5-39.
Jakobsson et al. as modified by Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities.
However, Tremblay et al. teaches receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities (Paragraph 92 discloses creating custom objects may be offered for addressing need for customizability with CRM systems and other-related systems for marketing and sales activities and Paragraph 680 discloses Elements of the present disclosure may be represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Ownership rights related to the non-fungible tokens may be recorded in or referenced by a distributed ledger).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. and Rodriguez with Tremblay et al. to include, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 3-4.
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, wherein the interaction message includes transmitting to the remote computing device a content message, the content message identifying content selected based on one or more preferences reflected in the non-fungible preference token (Paragraph 206 discloses A third partition may correspond to usage data associated with the wallet user, and a fourth partition may correspond to demographic data and/or preference data associated with the wallet user. Yet other partitions may correspond to classifications of content, e.g., child-friendly vs. adult; classifications of whether associated items are for sale or not, etc).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, the method further comprising:
evaluating one or more requested actions based on one or more permissions stored in association with the non-fungible preference token (Paragraph 137 discloses The permissions granted by individual users may enable the content creators 104 to directly access data written to an immutable ledger. In many embodiments, the permissions granted by individual users enable authorized computing systems to access data within an immutable ledger and content creators 104 can query the authorized computing systems to obtain aggregated information); and
performing the one or more requested actions when it is determined that the one or more requested actions are permitted (Paragraph 137 discloses The permissions granted by individual users may enable the content creators 104 to directly access data written to an immutable ledger. In many embodiments, the permissions granted by individual users enable authorized computing systems to access data within an immutable ledger and content creators 104 can query the authorized computing systems to obtain aggregated information).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, wherein identifying the non-fungible preference token comprises communicating with an identity service, the identity service configured to perform zero-knowledge identity verification of identity claims associated with the public trust ledger (Paragraph 146 discloses NFT platforms in accordance with many embodiments of the invention utilize public blockchains and permissioned blockchains. In several embodiments, the public blockchain is decentralized and universally accessible).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 5, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 4, wherein the identity service is a decentralized identity service (Paragraph 146 discloses NFT platforms in accordance with many embodiments of the invention utilize public blockchains and permissioned blockchains. In several embodiments, the public blockchain is decentralized and universally accessible).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 6, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 4, wherein the identity service is a centralized identity service (Paragraph 146 discloses the permissioned blockchain can be in the form of distributed ledgers, while the blockchain may alternatively be centralized in a single entity).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 7, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, wherein the non-fungible preference token is associated with a plurality of preference values including the updated preference value, and wherein the updated preference value is a revealed preference value determined based on one or more actions performed by the user (Paragraph 424 discloses Different types of user authorizations may depend on different risk scores, user configurations; machine learning processes (e.g., machine learning that has been trained on user preferences), among various other types of authorizations).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7. With respect to claim 8, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 7, wherein the plurality of preference values includes a stated preference value that characterizes a preference determined based on user input provided by the user (Paragraph 424 discloses Different types of user authorizations may depend on different risk scores, user configurations; machine learning processes (e.g., machine learning that has been trained on user preferences), among various other types of authorizations).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 9, Jakobsson et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, wherein the public trust ledger is a blockchain (Paragraph 113 discloses a multi-layer blockchain).
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 10, Tremblay et al. teaches the method recited in claim 1, wherein the database system is configured to provide on-demand database services to a plurality of entities via the internet (Paragraph 272 discloses database services, etc.), other microservices may be accessed by a client-specific service system 1900 only if the client has selected service features that are supported by the other microservices). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobsson et al. reference and the Tremblay et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 11.
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 11, Tremblay et al. teaches the method recited in claim 10, wherein the on-demand database services include customer relations management services (Paragraph 115 discloses a customer relationship management system 158 with other elements of the platform according to one or more embodiments of the disclosure. In embodiments, the generated online content object 160 may comprise messaging content for a customer interaction that is managed via a customer relationship management system 158). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 10 provided above, combining the Jakobsson et al. reference and the Tremblay et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 11.
The Jakobsson et al. reference as modified by Rodriguez and Tremblay et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 12, Tremblay et al. teaches the method recited in claim 11, wherein the digital interaction includes a request transmitted from the remote computing device to a service provider, the service provider accessing the customer relations management services provided by the database system (Paragraph 272 discloses database services, etc.), other microservices may be accessed by a client-specific service system 1900 only if the client has selected service features that are supported by the other microservices). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 11 provided above, combining the Jakobsson et al. reference and the Tremblay et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, Jakobsson et al. teaches a database system comprising one or more processors configured to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device (Paragraph 131 discloses data reporting the occurrence of NFT event interactions data reporting the content of NFT transactions, data reporting the content of media wallet interactions, and/or data reporting the occurrence of media wallet interactions and Paragraph 163 discloses remote off-ledger resources), the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities;
determining a public trust ledger identifier associated with the interaction message (Paragraph 214 discloses Some NFTs may be referred to as anchored NFTs (or anchored tokens), used to tie some element, such as a physical entity, to an identifier. Of this classification, one sub-category may be used to tie users' real-world identities and/or identifiers to a system identifier, such as a public key). Jakobsson et al. does not disclose identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger.
However, Rodriguez teaches identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger (Paragraph 100 discloses a user interface is provided to serve as a “personal privacy and marketing control panel,” where individual users record their preferences with instructions on how the users would like their data to be used. In one embodiment, the user may specify which preferences may be shared with which preference centers or entities, for instance, by identifying categories of entities and Paragraph 101 discloses users may manage their privacy preferences that cover the following uses: temporal, spatial, functional, identity, social, tracking and aggregation);
determining an updated preference value based at least in part on the digital interaction between the database system and remote computing device, the updated preference value identifying an update to stated preferences or revealed preferences included in the preference information (Paragraph 124 discloses architecture 600 allows for data and preferences created or updated by a user to be secured and encrypted inside a container 616. When a user creates or updates data and preferences using the application in the client device, in some embodiments, an API call to an API 620 of a container controller 618 stored on the client device is executed); and
transmitting via the communication interface an instruction to the public trust ledger to update the non-fungible preference token to include the updated preference value such that the public trust ledger is updated to store the updated stated preferences or revealed preferences (Paragraph 289 discloses Upon the approval 350 of the central authority, the now updated blockchain 360 can reflect the added block 320 and Paragraph 290 discloses a data container access and control blockchain architecture 2800 in accordance with various embodiments of this disclosure. The architecture 2800 includes the master data controller 710 and associated master data preferences 719 and access and usage log 725, and the edge data controller 718. As described in the various embodiments herein, data containers 716 can store data and/or digital assets such as text, images, audio, or other data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. with Rodriguez to include identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledgers. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 5-39.
Jakobsson et al. as modified by Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities.
However, Tremblay et al. teaches receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities (Paragraph 92 discloses creating custom objects may be offered for addressing need for customizability with CRM systems and other-related systems for marketing and sales activities and Paragraph 680 discloses Elements of the present disclosure may be represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Ownership rights related to the non-fungible tokens may be recorded in or referenced by a distributed ledger).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. and Rodriguez with Tremblay et al. to include, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 3-4.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, Jakobsson et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon for performing a method, the method comprising:
receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device (Paragraph 131 discloses data reporting the occurrence of NFT event interactions data reporting the content of NFT transactions, data reporting the content of media wallet interactions, and/or data reporting the occurrence of media wallet interactions and Paragraph 163 discloses remote off-ledger resources), the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities;
determining a public trust ledger identifier associated with the interaction message (Paragraph 214 discloses Some NFTs may be referred to as anchored NFTs (or anchored tokens), used to tie some element, such as a physical entity, to an identifier. Of this classification, one sub-category may be used to tie users' real-world identities and/or identifiers to a system identifier, such as a public key). Jakobsson et al. does not disclose identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger.
However, Rodriguez teaches identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledger (Paragraph 100 discloses a user interface is provided to serve as a “personal privacy and marketing control panel,” where individual users record their preferences with instructions on how the users would like their data to be used. In one embodiment, the user may specify which preferences may be shared with which preference centers or entities, for instance, by identifying categories of entities and Paragraph 101 discloses users may manage their privacy preferences that cover the following uses: temporal, spatial, functional, identity, social, tracking and aggregation);
determining an updated preference value based at least in part on the digital interaction between the database system and remote computing device, the updated preference value identifying an update to stated preferences or revealed preferences included in the preference information (Paragraph 124 discloses architecture 600 allows for data and preferences created or updated by a user to be secured and encrypted inside a container 616. When a user creates or updates data and preferences using the application in the client device, in some embodiments, an API call to an API 620 of a container controller 618 stored on the client device is executed); and
transmitting via the communication interface an instruction to the public trust ledger to update the non-fungible preference token to include the updated preference value such that the public trust ledger is updated to store the updated stated preferences or revealed preferences (Paragraph 289 discloses Upon the approval 350 of the central authority, the now updated blockchain 360 can reflect the added block 320 and Paragraph 290 discloses a data container access and control blockchain architecture 2800 in accordance with various embodiments of this disclosure. The architecture 2800 includes the master data controller 710 and associated master data preferences 719 and access and usage log 725, and the edge data controller 718. As described in the various embodiments herein, data containers 716 can store data and/or digital assets such as text, images, audio, or other data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. with Rodriguez to include identifying via a processor a non-fungible preference token recorded in a public trust ledger within a wallet owned by the public trust ledger identifier, the non-fungible preference token including one or more preference values identifying preference information about a decentralized identity account of a user associated with the public trust ledger identifier, aggregated based on a plurality of interactions between the user and one or more service providers, and recorded via the public trust ledgers. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 5-39.
Jakobsson et al. as modified by Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities.
However, Tremblay et al. teaches receiving from a remote computing device via a communication interface at a database system an interaction message as part of a digital interaction between the database system and the remote computing device, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities (Paragraph 92 discloses creating custom objects may be offered for addressing need for customizability with CRM systems and other-related systems for marketing and sales activities and Paragraph 680 discloses Elements of the present disclosure may be represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Ownership rights related to the non-fungible tokens may be recorded in or referenced by a distributed ledger).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobsson et al. and Rodriguez with Tremblay et al. to include, the database system providing customer relations management services to a plurality of entities via the Internet, the interaction message being transmitted to an entity of the plurality of entities. This would have facilitated improved question answering. See Tremblay et al. Paragraph(s) 3-4.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20230011621 is directed to Artifact Origination And Content Tokenization [0332] various embodiments of the invention may determine preference scores for each of the selected users based on their reactions and actions. In a number of embodiments, systems may then associate the users (and their demographics, where available), with the applicable content based on the preference scores. Systems operating in accordance with certain embodiments may receive selections from the primary composers indicating how to filter preference scores (e.g., how to select and/or weigh scores based on demographics). Some of the selected users may show greater propensities to predict the preferences of the general population (e.g., by having a past response strongly correlated to the response of the public). The primary composers can select to weigh the scores of users based on this demonstrated propensity. A system in accordance with various embodiments may provide services to the primary composers based on subscriptions, membership, and/or a “per insight” charge. A number of systems may be composed of one or more NFTs with executable content, and/or other executable elements. The primary composers may modify some of the most highly ranked versions of the content (e.g., song variants) to be iteratively tested. Iterative testing may be performed with the same users and/or with other users. Systems operating in accordance with various embodiments, may receive multiple feedback indications from multiple users for multiple forms of content, and determine scores and weighted scores for these. After having selected one or more versions that are determined to be the most appreciated and/or deemed to be most appreciated by a target population, the primary composers may decide to proceed to involve collaborator composers, as described below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154