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 .
Status of Application
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendments, Arguments, and Remarks filed on the 15th day of September, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-25 are pending. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, and 17 have been cancelled. 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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-25 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. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-25 describe a system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium. Hence, the claimed invention is initially directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-25 are directed to a method, system and non-transitory storage medium. 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 2A). Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are substantially similar in scope and language.
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 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 the claim language below represents language directed to: 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a series of steps creating a unique immutable crypto token associated with a physical consumable item reciting a method for controlling access to data and computing systems associated with printing protected digital artwork on physical consumable items using crypto tokens, the method comprising:
creating a first unique immutable crypto token associated with a physical consumable item usable for printing protected digital artwork;
storing the first unique immutable crypto token on a blockchain computing platform;
linking the first unique immutable crypto token to the physical consumable item by storing data on the first unique immutable crypto token that associates a unique identifier affixed to the physical consumable item with the first unique immutable crypto token;
linking the first unique immutable crypto token with one or more executable functions of a computing system, the linking comprising accessing the first unique immutable crypto token on the blockchain computing platform by the computing system via a decentralized computing network:
creating a second unique immutable crypto token associated with printing rights of protected digital artwork:
storing the second unique immutable crypto token in a digital wallet:
linking the second unique immutable crypto token to the protected digital artwork by storing data on the second unique immutable crypto token associated with a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the protected digital artwork:
wherein the one or more executable functions of the computing system are operable to:
authorize consumption of the physical consumable item by accessing, via the decentralized computing network, first data stored on the linked first unique immutable crypto token, and processing the accessed first data;
authorize printing of the protected digital artwork in conjunction with the consumption of the physical consumable item by accessing second data stored on the second unique immutable crypto token, and processing the accessed second data:
responsive to the consumption being authorized and the printing being authorized, initiate printing of the protected digital artwork using the consumption of the physical consumable item, item;
measure and verify consumption of the physical consumable item in conjunction with the printing of the protected digital artwork and
responsive to completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork and verification of the consumption of the physical consumable item, store third data pertaining to the measured consumption on the linked first unique immutable crypto token via the decentralized computing network and store fourth data pertaining to the completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork on the linked second unique immutable crypto token;
storing the linked first unique immutable crypto token within a unique digital wallet via a secure computer communications network;
verifying certification of the one or more executable functions with a verification crypto token via the secure computer communications network using a computing system operating system digital signature;
accessing the linked first unique immutable crypto token stored within the unique digital wallet via the secure computer communications network by the computing system;
evaluating, by the computing system, whether the accessed linked first unique immutable crypto token is present and valid using the unique identifier affixed to the physical consumable item to make a determination;
accessing the linked second unique immutable crypto token by the computing system:
evaluating, by the computing system, whether the accessed linked second unique immutable crypto token is present and valid with available printing rights for the protected digital artwork:
responsive to the determination that the accessed linked first unique immutable crypto token is present and valid and the determination that the accessed linked second unique immutable crypto token is present and valid with available printing rights for the protected digital artwork:
determining a planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item by execution of the one or more executable functions,
determining an available amount of consumption of the physical consumable item by querying data associated with the physical consumable item on an immutable decentralized data storage network, the available amount of consumption being based at least in part on data pertaining to prior measured consumption of the physical consumable item stored on the immutable decentralized data storage network, and
responsive to the available amount of consumption of the physical consumable item being at least as much as the planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item associated with printing the protected digital artwork, authorizing printing the protected digital artwork and the associated consumption of the physical consumable item by execution of the one or more executable functions of the computing system;
initiating execution of the one or more executable functions to cause the printing of the protected digital artwork and the associated planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item;
measuring and verifying consumption of the physical consumable item in conjunction with the printing of the protected digital artwork associated with the execution of the one or more executable functions of the computing system;
responsive to completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork and verification of the consumption of the physical consumable item, recording data pertaining to the measured consumption of the physical consumable item on the immutable decentralized data storage network; and
expending the linked first unique immutable crypto token according to the measured consumption of the physical consumable item and expending the linked second unique immutable crypto token according to the completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork by the certified one or more executable functions of the computing system.
The limitations above recite a plan or scheme for storing, issuing, and transferring securities attached to consumable item, which is a commercial or legal interaction and therefore falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. This is common practice when transferring any good or product and that is managing the inventory and allotted consumption for each item. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as inventory management and asset transfering, 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).
Alternatively, Examiner notes that the claims recite a system for receiving and storing token information related to specific consumable items, receiving information related to the rendering of rights associated or usages of consumable items, storing the updated information based on the result and outputting authorization of the consumption based on stored policies which amounts to collecting information, processing the information, and displaying the results of the analysis which involves 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).
Step 2A-Prong two of the §101 analysis is to determine whether the claim elements, when viewed individually as an ordered combination, contain an inventive concept sufficient to integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are: a blockchain/smart contract system. The computing devices are recited at a high level of generality, and comprise only a processor and storage memory to perform the generic computer functions of storing information within a decentralized system. The mere nominal recitation of generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of “computing system” is configured to store the tokens and transactions directly on the distributed blockchain are merely applying the abstract idea of securely storing, issuing, and transferring the token and transaction documentation in a technological environment that is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, there is no impact on the abstract idea itself because it is implemented on the additional element of the decentralized system is being applied to the abstract idea to make it integrated into the practical application.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; and A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1.
Examiner notes that the claimed in invention is similar to the Voter Verified, Inc., FairWarning, Mortgage Grader, Berkheimer, Content Extraction and CyberSource applications wherein the court identified computer system or “decentralized immutable data storage network”, and “tokens”, is merely server as a the generic computer, computing environment, or tool to perform the mental process.
The additional claim elements, when viewed individually as an ordered combination, recite the abstract idea with mere instructions to implement it in a particular technological environment that includes generic hardware. MPEP 2105(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not improve the functioning of any computerized device nor improves another technology or technical process, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the §101 analysis is to determine whether the claim elements, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, contain “an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A, using additional elements to perform the generic computer functions noted above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component and thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Accordingly, claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-25 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract idea which has been identified above as being directed to a method of organizing human activity. The dependent claims inherit all of the limitations and deficiencies of the independent claims without curing them and thus are directed to the same abstract ideas identified for the independent claims. These steps are consistent with the types of ideas found to be methods of organizing human activity.
Further, viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed, either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional claim limitations do not amount to a claim that, as a whole, is significantly more than the abstract idea simply storing, transferring, updating, and managing securities and associated users. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible and rejected under 35 USC §101 for the same reasons above.
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.
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) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220407702 to Jakobsson et al. (hereinafter Jakobsson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230266930 to Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker).
Referring to Claim 1, 8, and 15 (substantially similar in scope and language) the combination of Jakobsson and Baker discloses a method for controlling access to data and computing systems associated with printing protected digital artwork on physical consumable items using crypto tokens (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”).
Examiner notes that Jakobsson discloses that the tokens can correspond to virtual, digital AND physical items but fails to state that the systems associated with printing protected digital artwork on physical consumable items.
However, Baker, which talks about a method and system for generating a secure digital copy of content, teaches it is known to provide a system and method to determine and validate whether or not a specific device or user is authorized to print the digital copy of the content wherein the system stores, loads, and verifies linked crypto tokens within a digital wallet unique to the user of the computer system (see at least Baker: ¶ 23, 27, 32-33, and 36-38, 41 “When generating the print job at 310 and transferring the print job to the print device at 311, the system may generate and transfer a verification code to be printed with the digital content. The verification code may include any or all of the following information: an identifier for the digital wallet; a transaction hash that is stored in the digital wallet; a transaction hash for a print transaction that resulted in printing of the content; and/or a location at which the print device is located. The system may use any suitable code generation process to generate and format the code. For example, the system may generate a machine identification code (MIC), which is a digital watermark that encodes a unique combination of characters (such as a number and/or letter combination) into a pattern of tiny dots (generally known as microdots) spread over some or all of the print area”, and 44: discussing “Any of the computing devices (such as computing device 203) may store a digital wallet 209, which is a software application that contains a public key 221, and which is associated with a private key 222 that may be stored in the wallet (if the wallet is a non-custodial wallet) or (in the case of a custodial wallet) on a remote server (such as server 205 a). Each key is a string of letters and numbers that is unique to the authorized user of the digital wallet. Optionally, instead of being stored on the computing device 203, the digital wallet may be a web wallet 210 that is stored on a remote server 205 a that is accessed by a software application (such as a browser) running on the computing device 203. (This document will use the term digital wallet generally to refer to both local digital wallets installed on a client device as well as web wallets.) The digital wallet 203 will have a wallet address, which is a unique string of letters and/or numbers that is the address from and to which the wallet sends and received digital objects such as cryptocurrency and NFTs. The digital wallet's public key and address may be shared with third party for the purpose of engaging in transactions. However, the digital wallet's private key will be encrypted and will not be shared with third parties other than (if used) the wallet custodian (such as that which operates server 205 a). [0033] FIG. 3 illustrates a process by which a system such as that shown in FIG. 2 may generate and print a verified copy of content associated with an NFT. This system will include a data store of user profiles for authorized users of a print service. The data store may be located in a memory of one or more of the remote servers (e.g., server 205 n of FIG. 2), or it may be stored in a memory of a print device or in memory of a computing device that is communicatively connected to a print device (e.g., print device 202 and computing device 201 of FIG. 2). As an optional step prior to the process, at 301 an authorized print service user who has purchased an NFT will instruct the system to associate the user's digital wallet with the user's print service user profile. The association of the wallet with the user profile may be done by storing a wallet address, or another identification code for the digital wallet, in the user profile. The digital wallet will be that with which the user purchased the NFT. The digital wallet may store a copy of the NFT. Alternatively, if the NFT is stored remotely on a blockchain the digital wallet will contain a code that can be used to access the NFT on the blockchain, such as a hash of a transaction identification code for the NFT purchase transaction. (Such a hash is commonly known as a “transaction hash” or “TX hash”.)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system (as disclosed by Baker) to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by Jakobsson) to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system because it would prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain (see Baker ¶ 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system (as disclosed by Baker) to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by Jakobsson) to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. 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 applying the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches
creating a first unique immutable crypto token associated with a physical consumable item usable for printing protected digital artwork;
The combination of Jakobsson and Baker discloses the unique crypto token representing a quantity of authorized prints and the associated physical consumable item, and creating a first unique immutable crypto token associated with a physical consumable item usable for printing protected digital artwork (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 177 “and distributing the digital print package through a standalone Smart Contract adapted for secure and verifiable transactions for digital artwork printing rights and the associated physical consumable item; see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”).
Jakobsson specifically states that “the media wallet application is capable of accessing multiple blockchains by deriving accounts from each of the various immutable ledgers used within an NFT platform” (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 104; see also ).
The combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches:
storing the first unique immutable crypto token on a blockchain computing platform (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system);
linking the first unique immutable crypto token to the physical consumable item by storing data on the first unique immutable crypto token that associates a unique identifier affixed to the physical consumable item with the first unique immutable crypto token (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 235-236: discussing affixed QR codes that store data related to tokens associated to physical consumable items; Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system));
linking the first unique immutable crypto token with one or more executable functions of a computing system, the linking comprising accessing the first unique immutable crypto token on the blockchain computing platform by the computing system via a decentralized computing network (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system):
creating a second unique immutable crypto token associated with printing rights of protected digital artwork (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”):
storing the second unique immutable crypto token in a digital wallet (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-96 “the NFT platform can include media wallet applications that enable users to securely store NFTs and/or other tokens on their devices. Furthermore, media wallets (also referred to as “digital wallets”) can enable users to obtain NFTs that prove purchase of rights to access a particular piece of media content on one platform and use the NFT to gain access to the purchased content on another platform.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ the media wallet application is capable of accessing multiple blockchains by deriving accounts from each of the various immutable ledgers used within an NFT platform):
linking the second unique immutable crypto token to the protected digital artwork by storing data on the second unique immutable crypto token associated with a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the protected digital artwork (Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117):
wherein the one or more executable functions of the computing system are operable to:
authorize consumption of the physical consumable item by accessing, via the decentralized computing network, first data stored on the linked first unique immutable crypto token, and processing the accessed first data (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117);
authorize printing of the protected digital artwork in conjunction with the consumption of the physical consumable item by accessing second data stored on the second unique immutable crypto token, and processing the accessed second data (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117):
responsive to the consumption being authorized and the printing being authorized, initiate printing of the protected digital artwork using the physical consumable, item (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration datasee at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”);
measure and verify consumption of the physical consumable item in conjunction with the printing of the protected digital artwork (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”) and
responsive to completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork and verification of the consumption of the physical consumable item, store third data pertaining to the measured consumption on the linked first unique immutable crypto token via the decentralized computing network and store fourth data pertaining to the completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork on the linked second unique immutable crypto token (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration datasee at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117);
storing the linked first unique immutable crypto token within a unique digital wallet via a secure computer communications network (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-96 and 100 “In a number of embodiments, users utilize media wallet applications 110 on their devices to store NFTs 106 distributed using the NFT platform 100. Users can use media wallet applications 110 to obtain and/or transfer NFTs 106. In facilitating the retention or transfer of NFTs 106, media wallet applications may utilize wallet user interfaces that engage in transactional restrictions through either uniform or personalized settings”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 103-105, 108, 112, 113-114, and 154-176: discussing the use of the digital wallet, “digital wallets may be used to store at least one type of token-directed content”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117);
verifying certification of the one or more executable functions with a verification crypto token via the secure computer communications network using a computing system operating system digital signature (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 85-86, 115 (verifiably immutable) and 115 “A verifier 1110 capable of verifying blockchain transactions in an NFT platform in accordance with many embodiments of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 11”);
accessing the linked first unique immutable crypto token stored within the unique digital wallet via the secure computer communications network by the computing system (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-96 and 100 “In a number of embodiments, users utilize media wallet applications 110 on their devices to store NFTs 106 distributed using the NFT platform 100. Users can use media wallet applications 110 to obtain and/or transfer NFTs 106. In facilitating the retention or transfer of NFTs 106, media wallet applications may utilize wallet user interfaces that engage in transactional restrictions through either uniform or personalized settings”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 103-105, 108, 112, 113-114, and 154-176: discussing the use of the digital wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117);
evaluating, by the computing system, whether the accessed linked first unique immutable crypto token is present and valid using the unique identifier affixed to the physical consumable item to make a determination (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 235-236: discussing affixed QR codes that store and provide data related to tokens associated to physical consumable items; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117);
accessing the linked second unique immutable crypto token by the computing system (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 235-236: discussing affixed QR codes that store and provide data related to tokens associated to physical consumable items; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117):
evaluating, by the computing system, whether the accessed linked second unique immutable crypto token is present and valid with available printing rights for the protected digital artwork (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 235-236: discussing affixed QR codes that store and provide data related to tokens associated to physical consumable items; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117):
responsive to the determination that the accessed linked first unique immutable crypto token is present and valid and the determination that the accessed linked second unique immutable crypto token is present and valid with available printing rights for the protected digital artwork (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 235-236: discussing affixed QR codes that store and provide data related to tokens associated to physical consumable items; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97-98 and 100-101 “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.”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 114-117):
determining a planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item by execution of the one or more executable functions (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item),
determining an available amount of consumption of the physical consumable item by querying data associated with the physical consumable item on an immutable decentralized data storage network, the available amount of consumption being based at least in part on data pertaining to prior measured consumption of the physical consumable item stored on the immutable decentralized data storage network (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated), and
responsive to the available amount of consumption of the physical consumable item being at least as much as the planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item associated with printing the protected digital artwork, authorizing printing the protected digital artwork and the associated consumption of the physical consumable item by execution of the one or more executable functions of the computing system (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”);
initiating execution of the one or more executable functions to cause the printing of the protected digital artwork and the associated planned amount of consumption of the physical consumable item (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management);
measuring and verifying consumption of the physical consumable item in conjunction with the printing of the protected digital artwork associated with the execution of the one or more executable functions of the computing system (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management);
responsive to completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork and verification of the consumption of the physical consumable item, recording data pertaining to the measured consumption of the physical consumable item on the immutable decentralized data storage network (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated ; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management); and
expending the linked first unique immutable crypto token according to the measured consumption of the physical consumable item and expending the linked second unique immutable crypto token according to the completion of the printing of the protected digital artwork by the certified one or more executable functions of the computing system (see at least see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 234 “ownership tokens correspond to virtual, digital, and physical items”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; see also Baker: ¶ 28 “blockchain platform will verify the transaction and/or validate the block and, upon verification and verification, add the block to the platform's permanent distributed digital ledger”; see also Baker: ¶ 29 “system that may be used to print an authenticated copy of digital content that is associated with an NFT”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management).
Referring to Claim 21, 23, and 25, the combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches the method of claim 1 and claim 8 and claim 15, wherein: recording the measured consumption includes recording the measured consumption as transactions on the immutable decentralized data storage network; and expending the linked crypto token includes comparing a sum of the transactions on the immutable decentralized data storage network to a total sum associated with the physical consumable item as recorded in the linked crypto token (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management).
Referring to Claim 22 and 24, the combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches the method of claim 1 and claim 8, wherein: execution of the one or more executable functions comprises performing a printing process; and the physical consumable item includes a printable substrate on which printing is performed during the printing process (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 338 “the digital authenticity value 1680 of the physical element 1690 can be expressed using a visible representation. The visible representation may be an optional physical interface 1670 taken from a group including, but not limited to, a barcode and a quick response (QR) code encoding the digital authenticity value. In some embodiments, the encoded value may also be represented in an authenticity database. Moreover, the physical interface 1670 may be physically associated with the physical element. One example of such may be a QR tag being glued to or printed on the back of a canvas. In some embodiments of the invention, the physical interface 1670 may be possible to physically disassociate from the physical item it is attached to. However, if a DAV 1680 is used to express authenticity of two or more physical items, the authenticity database may detect and block a new entry during the registration of the second of the two physical items. For example, if a very believable forgery is made of a painting the forged painting may not be considered authentic without the QR code associated with the digital element.”; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated;).
Referring to Claim 2, 9, and 16 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Jakobsson and Baker discloses the method of claim 1, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, and system of claim 15; Examiner notes that Jakobsson discloses the wherein the first unique immutable crypto token associated with the physical consumable item is linked with the second unique immutable crypto token for verification of the authorized consumption in conjunction with printing process of the authorized printing of the protected digital artwork and further comprising (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-95 and 99: discussing consumption analysis and management based on the tokens stored within a specific wallet; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 101: discussing consumption management; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 94-96 and 100 “In a number of embodiments, users utilize media wallet applications 110 on their devices to store NFTs 106 distributed using the NFT platform 100. Users can use media wallet applications 110 to obtain and/or transfer NFTs 106. In facilitating the retention or transfer of NFTs 106, media wallet applications may utilize wallet user interfaces that engage in transactional restrictions through either uniform or personalized settings”; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 103-105, 108, 112, 113-114, and 154-176: discussing the use of the digital wallet); responsive to authorizing the printing of the protected digital artwork (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated), linking expenditure of the printing rights with the expenditure of the linked first unique immutable crypto token associated with the physical consumable item, wherein each authorized printing of the protected digital artwork using the physical consumable item reduces a second unique immutable crypto crypto token balance corresponding to the authorized printing of the protected digital artwork and a first unique immutable crypto token balance and a crypto token balance corresponding to the consumed physical consumable item (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated);
Jakobsson discloses the unique immutable crypto token representing a quantity of authorized prints and the associated physical consumable item, and a valid digital wallet account for managing the unique immutable crypto token and distributing the digital print package through a standalone Smart Contract adapted for secure and verifiable transactions for the digital artwork printing rights of the protected digital artwork associated with the second unique immutable crypto token and the associated physical consumable item associated with the first unique immutable crypto token (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 177 “and distributing the digital print package through a standalone Smart Contract adapted for secure and verifiable transactions for digital artwork printing rights and the associated physical consumable item").
Jakobsson fails to state:
generating a digital print package that includes a watermarked preview image of the protected digital artwork.
However, Baker, which talks about a method and system for generating a secure digital copy of content, teaches it is known to provide a system and method to determine and validate whether or not a specific device or user is authorized to print the digital copy of the content wherein the system stores, loads, and verifies linked crypto tokens within a digital wallet unique to the user of the computer system (see at least Baker: ¶ 23, 27, 32-33, and 36-38, 41 “When generating the print job at 310 and transferring the print job to the print device at 311, the system may generate and transfer a verification code to be printed with the digital content. The verification code may include any or all of the following information: an identifier for the digital wallet; a transaction hash that is stored in the digital wallet; a transaction hash for a print transaction that resulted in printing of the content; and/or a location at which the print device is located. The system may use any suitable code generation process to generate and format the code. For example, the system may generate a machine identification code (MIC), which is a digital watermark that encodes a unique combination of characters (such as a number and/or letter combination) into a pattern of tiny dots (generally known as microdots) spread over some or all of the print area”, and 44: discussing “Any of the computing devices (such as computing device 203) may store a digital wallet 209, which is a software application that contains a public key 221, and which is associated with a private key 222 that may be stored in the wallet (if the wallet is a non-custodial wallet) or (in the case of a custodial wallet) on a remote server (such as server 205 a). Each key is a string of letters and numbers that is unique to the authorized user of the digital wallet. Optionally, instead of being stored on the computing device 203, the digital wallet may be a web wallet 210 that is stored on a remote server 205 a that is accessed by a software application (such as a browser) running on the computing device 203. (This document will use the term digital wallet generally to refer to both local digital wallets installed on a client device as well as web wallets.) The digital wallet 203 will have a wallet address, which is a unique string of letters and/or numbers that is the address from and to which the wallet sends and received digital objects such as cryptocurrency and NFTs. The digital wallet's public key and address may be shared with third party for the purpose of engaging in transactions. However, the digital wallet's private key will be encrypted and will not be shared with third parties other than (if used) the wallet custodian (such as that which operates server 205 a). [0033] FIG. 3 illustrates a process by which a system such as that shown in FIG. 2 may generate and print a verified copy of content associated with an NFT. This system will include a data store of user profiles for authorized users of a print service. The data store may be located in a memory of one or more of the remote servers (e.g., server 205 n of FIG. 2), or it may be stored in a memory of a print device or in memory of a computing device that is communicatively connected to a print device (e.g., print device 202 and computing device 201 of FIG. 2). As an optional step prior to the process, at 301 an authorized print service user who has purchased an NFT will instruct the system to associate the user's digital wallet with the user's print service user profile. The association of the wallet with the user profile may be done by storing a wallet address, or another identification code for the digital wallet, in the user profile. The digital wallet will be that with which the user purchased the NFT. The digital wallet may store a copy of the NFT. Alternatively, if the NFT is stored remotely on a blockchain the digital wallet will contain a code that can be used to access the NFT on the blockchain, such as a hash of a transaction identification code for the NFT purchase transaction. (Such a hash is commonly known as a “transaction hash” or “TX hash”.)”).
Baker further teaches it is known to provide a system for generating a digital print package that includes a watermarked preview image of the digital artwork, (see at least Baker: ¶ 41 “When generating the print job at 310 and transferring the print job to the print device at 311, the system may generate and transfer a verification code to be printed with the digital content. The verification code may include any or all of the following information: an identifier for the digital wallet; a transaction hash that is stored in the digital wallet; a transaction hash for a print transaction that resulted in printing of the content; and/or a location at which the print device is located. The system may use any suitable code generation process to generate and format the code. For example, the system may generate a machine identification code (MIC), which is a digital watermark that encodes a unique combination of characters (such as a number and/or letter combination) into a pattern of tiny dots (generally known as microdots) spread over some or all of the print area”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system (as disclosed by Baker) to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by Jakobsson) to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system because it would prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain (see Baker ¶ 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system (as disclosed by Baker) to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by Jakobsson) to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. 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 applying the known technique of using a unique digital wallet by the computing system to the known system monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information to prevent copying of files that are off the blockchain). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 4, 11, and 18 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches the method of claim 2, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, and system of claim 16, further comprising: monitoring the consumption of the physical consumable item during a printing process of the protected digital artwork; comparing the monitored consumption with an authorized amount of consumption based on the second unique immutable crypto token associated with the protected digital artwork printing rights; and disallowing further prints of the protected digital artwork to be generated after the monitored consumption equals and/or exceeds the authorized amount of consumption based on the second unique immutable crypto token associated with the protected digital artwork printing rights (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121: discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220407702 to Jakobsson et al. (hereinafter Jakobsson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230266930 to Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220198562 A1 to Cella et al. (hereinafter Cella).
Referring to Claim 6, 13, and 19 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Jakobsson and Baker teaches the method of claim 1, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, and system of claim 15; Jakobsson discloses the system receiving consumption requestions for specific consumable items using linked crypto tokes tracking the consumption rate which discloses further comprising: receiving the physical consumable item to be consumed (recycled); verifying authenticity of the physical consumable item to be consumed (recycled)based on the unique digital wallet containing the linked first unique immutable crypto token associated with the physical consumable item to be consumed (recycled); and responsive to verifying the authenticity of the physical consumable item, updating a spent amount of the verified physical consumable item expenditures in the associated linked first unique immutable crypto token within the unique digital wallet associated with the verified physical consumable item to be consumed (recycled), the spent amount being updated to an amount permitting further expenditures of the verified physical consumable item (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 177 “and distributing the digital print package through a standalone Smart Contract adapted for secure and verifiable transactions for digital artwork printing rights and the associated physical consumable item").
Jakobsson fails to state that the item is being consumed in the form of being recycled.
Cella further discusses the smart contract management and digital knowledge system configured to enforce terms of material transfer from one marketplace to another such as a reuse/recycling of the material (see at least Cella: ¶ 1778 “Referring to FIG. 201, the present disclosure relates to a market orchestration system platform 20500 that is configured to facilitate electronic marketplace transactions, referred to herein in the alternative as the “platform,” the “system” or the like, with such terms comprising various alternative embodiments involving various sets of components, modules, systems, sub-systems, processes, services, methods, and other elements described herein and in the documents incorporated herein by reference. According to embodiments herein, a marketplace may refer to an environment where assets may be listed and traded by buyers and sellers. Assets may refer to commodities, physical assets, digital assets, services, stocks, bonds, marketplace-traded funds (ETF), mutual funds, currencies, foreign exchange (FX), artwork and other works of authorship, alternative assets, recycled plastics, digital 3D designs, digital gaming assets, virtual goods, real estate, placement rights (such as for advertising), cryptocurrencies, metals and alloys, energy resources, derivatives (such as futures, forwards, options, puts, calls, and swaps), 3D printing capacity, digital twins, storage, intellectual property (e.g., trade secrets, patents, trademarks, designs, know how, privacy rights, publicity rights, and others), instruction sets, hybrid instruments, synthetic instruments, tranches of assets (including similar and mixed-asset tranches), streams of value (such as of interest), certificates of deposit (CDs), and the like, as well as portions of the above (such as divisible and undivided interests), hybrids of the above, and aggregates of the above (including tranches of securities, mutual funds, index funds, and others)”, and ¶ 1843 “A smart contract may be configured to enforce terms of material transfer from one marketplace (e.g., distribution) to another (e.g., retail), such as proper reuse/recycling of packaging material by the retail marketplace. This may be enabled by, for example, packaging location-tracking devices that provide information to the smart contract to ensure packaging material is routed per the terms of the agreement and failure by a party to adhere to such terms will trigger actions of the smart contract, such as retention of a deposit paid for the packaging, increase in automated invoice settlement, and the like”). Examiner notes that the specification merely discusses the suggestion that the product is identified as an item to be recycled at the expiration of the terms recycled (see Spec ¶142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled (as disclosed by Cella) to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system because it would provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same (see Cella ¶ 5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled (as disclosed by Cella) to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. 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 applying the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 7, 14, and 20 (substantially similar in scope and language), the combination of Jakobsson, Baker, and Cella discloses the method of claim 6, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, and system of claim 19; including wherein the updating the spent amount of the verified physical consumable item expenditures in the associated linked crypto token within the unique digital wallet associated with the verified physical consumable item to be consumed (recycled) comprises: evaluating whether the unique digital wallet of the verified physical consumable item being consumed (recycled)is holding valid existing digital rights to make a determination; responsive to determining that the unique digital wallet of the verified physical consumable item being consumed (recycled)is holding valid existing digital rights, assigning a new digital wallet to the verified physical consumable item being consumed (recycled); and responsive to determining that the unique digital wallet of the verified physical consumable item being consumed (recycled)is not holding valid existing digital rights, clearing and/or removing previous micro-transaction details from the unique digital wallet of the verified physical consumable item, and updating the spent first unique immutable crypto token within the unique digital wallet of the verified physical consumable item being consumed (recycled) with a fresh first unique immutable crypto token for the verified physical consumable item (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 81, 194, and 226 discussing renewing and updating rights and associated tokens; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 110-126: discussing the decentralized blockchain system; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 120-129: discussing the decentralized processing of information within the network incorporating rights management data, security keys, and configuration data; see also Jakobsson: ¶ 97, 99-101, 104, 114-115, and 121 : discussing the immutable ledgers incorporated; see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 177 “and distributing the digital print package through a standalone Smart Contract adapted for secure and verifiable transactions for digital artwork printing rights and the associated physical consumable item").
The combination of Jakobsson and Baker fails to state that the item is being consumed in the form of being recycled.
Cella further discusses the smart contract management and digital knowledge system configured to enforce terms of material transfer from one marketplace to another such as a reuse/recycling of the material (see at least Cella: ¶ 1778 “Referring to FIG. 201, the present disclosure relates to a market orchestration system platform 20500 that is configured to facilitate electronic marketplace transactions, referred to herein in the alternative as the “platform,” the “system” or the like, with such terms comprising various alternative embodiments involving various sets of components, modules, systems, sub-systems, processes, services, methods, and other elements described herein and in the documents incorporated herein by reference. According to embodiments herein, a marketplace may refer to an environment where assets may be listed and traded by buyers and sellers. Assets may refer to commodities, physical assets, digital assets, services, stocks, bonds, marketplace-traded funds (ETF), mutual funds, currencies, foreign exchange (FX), artwork and other works of authorship, alternative assets, recycled plastics, digital 3D designs, digital gaming assets, virtual goods, real estate, placement rights (such as for advertising), cryptocurrencies, metals and alloys, energy resources, derivatives (such as futures, forwards, options, puts, calls, and swaps), 3D printing capacity, digital twins, storage, intellectual property (e.g., trade secrets, patents, trademarks, designs, know how, privacy rights, publicity rights, and others), instruction sets, hybrid instruments, synthetic instruments, tranches of assets (including similar and mixed-asset tranches), streams of value (such as of interest), certificates of deposit (CDs), and the like, as well as portions of the above (such as divisible and undivided interests), hybrids of the above, and aggregates of the above (including tranches of securities, mutual funds, index funds, and others)”, and ¶ 1843 “A smart contract may be configured to enforce terms of material transfer from one marketplace (e.g., distribution) to another (e.g., retail), such as proper reuse/recycling of packaging material by the retail marketplace. This may be enabled by, for example, packaging location-tracking devices that provide information to the smart contract to ensure packaging material is routed per the terms of the agreement and failure by a party to adhere to such terms will trigger actions of the smart contract, such as retention of a deposit paid for the packaging, increase in automated invoice settlement, and the like”). Examiner notes that the specification merely discusses the suggestion that the product is identified as an item to be recycled at the expiration of the terms recycled (see Spec ¶142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled (as disclosed by Cella) to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system because it would provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same (see Cella ¶ 5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled (as disclosed by Cella) to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. 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 applying the known technique of expending the linked crypto token via according to the measured consumable consumption of the physical consumable item by the computing system wherein the consumable item is being recycled to the known monitoring, tracking, and updating the number of print jobs available to each rendering device and storing that data within the system wherein the system employs blockchain technology and tokenized encrypted information to provide a cryptographically secure blockchain for knowledge system capable of storing digital knowledge and providing convenient and secure control of the same). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220407702 to Jakobsson et al. (hereinafter Jakobsson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230266930 to Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230125716 A1 to Luke et al. (hereinafter Luke).
Referring to Claim 24, the combination of Jakobsson and Baker teachesthe non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, including wherein: execution of the one or more executable functions comprises performing a printing process (see at least Jakobsson: ¶ 238-243: discussing the management of consumption of the physical consumable good, product, or item);
Jakobsson does not explicitly state that the physical consumable item includes consumable ink and/or toner with which printing is performed during the printing process.
However, Luke, which talks about method and system for managing printing material usage, teaches it is known to use tokens to track the physical consumable items such as consumable ink, printing supplied, and toner (see at least Luke: ¶ 14 and 18 “As the printing device 202 uses the print material from the cartridge 208, the device 202 can track the supply of print material supply remaining within the cartridge 208. At some point the remaining print material supply reaches a first threshold, such as the first threshold 104 of FIG. 1”; see also Luke: ¶ 21, 25, 27, 29, 31-32, and 34: “The printing device 202 detects whether the print material supply remaining within the cartridge has reached the first threshold as has been updated (308), Once the remaining print material supply has reached the updated first threshold (310), the printing device 202 again sends a request (312), which in this case is the second such request sent to the computing device 204.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of tracking toner and printer materials usage using tokens (as disclosed by Luke) to the known method and system for managing the usage and rendering of consumable items (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to operatively reduce print material wastage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of tracking toner and printer materials usage using tokens because it would operatively reduce print material wastage (see Luke ¶ 13).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of tracking toner and printer materials usage using tokens (as disclosed by Luke) to the known method and system for managing the usage and rendering of consumable items (as disclosed by the combination of Jakobsson and Baker) to operatively reduce print material wastage, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. 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 applying the known technique of tracking toner and printer materials usage using tokens to the known method and system for managing the usage and rendering of consumable items to operatively reduce print material wastage). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 101 have been fully considered but the amendments have substantially changed the language of the claims and are now addressed in the newly applied rejection.
Examiner notes that applicant has submitted that the claims are different from the listed citations found in the MPEP wherein the courts identified abstract ideas in the form of judicial exceptions defined as methods of organizing human activity and mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant and notes that the application is directed to managing print jobs related to digital assets based on the rights associated to the asset and the quantity of physical items to print the digital asset on using tokens and blockchain technologies as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea found in buySAFE v. Google, Inc., in that the claimed invention validating available print jobs associated to digital assets and supplies.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction in the form of a legal obligation is found in Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 101 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed Cir. 2012). The patentee claimed a method of "aggregating real property into a real estate portfolio, dividing the interests in the portfolio into a number of deedshares, and subjecting those shares to a master agreement." 671 F.3d at 1322, 101 USPQ2d at 1788. The legal obligation at issue was the tax-free exchanges of real estate. The Federal Circuit concluded that the real estate investment tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges was an abstract concept. 671 F.3d at 1323, 101 USPQ2d at 1789. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea found within Fort Properties in that the system is processing information in the form of registry commands based on the “master agreement” in the form of the consent record stored within the registry.
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.
Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea in Credit Acceptance Corp., in that the system is processing information related to digital asset rights by processing stored printing rights in order to authenticate and print based on the rights and available physical items to print on.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the system is directed to a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Examiner notes that the claims recite a system for receiving and storing token information related to specific consumable items, receiving information related to the rendering of rights associated or usages of consumable items, storing the updated information based on the result and outputting authorization of the consumption based on stored policies which amounts to collecting information, processing the information, and displaying the results of the analysis which involves 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).
Examiner notes that the claimed invention amounts to a mental process in that the system is determining available printing rights and supplies stored using crypto tokens, and the subsequently performing the print based on the determination which is similar to the abstract ideas identified in Electric Power Group and Classen.
Computer Based Language
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; and A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1.
Examiner notes that the claimed in invention is similar to the Voter Verified, Inc., FairWarning, Mortgage Grader, Berkheimer, Content Extraction and CyberSource applications wherein the court identified computer system or “decentralized immutable data storage network” and “tokens” are merely serving as a the generic computer, computing environment, or tool to perform the mental process.
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’" Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218 n.3, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ 1, 8-9 (1981)). Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim. See, e.g., Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (process reciting combination of individually well-known freezing and thawing steps was "far from routine and conventional" and thus eligible); BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016), iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Examiner notes that the claimed in invention is similar to the Alice Corp and Versata Dev. Group, Inc applications wherein the court identified computer system or “decentralized immutable data storage network” and “tokens” are merely serving as a general-purpose computer, computing environment, or tool to perform the mental process.
Nothing is presented as to how the technology behind blockchain storage is improved. Examiner notes that amendments are directed to cryptographically authorized print jobs of protected digital assets in the blockchain but that is the intended use of blockchain technology. The system is being used in the intended purposes and merely storing the data. 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 generically claimed “decentralized immutable data storage network”.
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, 8, and 15, do not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is more similar to the identified tools above in that the system “logic”.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 an Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). Examiner notes that the claimed invention is more similar to the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. and Content Extraction in that the system is merely applying known computer methods such as programmable logic in order to access stored data for display related to contracts.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Specifying that the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying the results of the analysis on protected class information that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Examine notes that the claimed invention is more similar to that of Electric Power Group and FairWarning in that the system is using a specific technological environment (programmable logic) to apply the judicial exception. The claims stand rejected.
The claims stand rejected.
102 and 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) being rejected under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but the rejection has been updated to reflect the substant amendments submitted. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 20240211847 A1 to Nagao et al. which talks about a system and method for facilitating various rights management associated with a variety of physical products.
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 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 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.
/Michael Young/ Examiner, Art Unit 3626