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 .
This communication is in response to the remarks and amendments dated 8/15/2025. Claims 1-20, as amended and newly added claims 21 and 22, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/2025 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 13), “Similar to the examples provided in the M.P.E.P., claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the specific steps to allow a digital asset creator to create a digital asset on an infinite offer curve (IOC) platform and with the IOC platform to allow the digital asset creator to monetize their asset by creating and selling digital creator shares based on bids by fans using a user computing device having a GUI and interacting with a computing system and database and issue and sell liquidity shares to successful bidders in the auction on a prorate basis in accordance with the bids made”. However, this argument appears to merely be a conclusory statement without any analysis substantiating the conclusion.
The examiner is not able to ascertain how the examples from the MPEP that applicant refers to (Remarks, Pages 8-13) are similar to the claim limitations. Applicant gives multiple examples that do not recite abstract ideas (Remarks, pages 10-11), and examples that show improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field (Remarks, Pages 11-13). However, the examiner is not able to find where an analogy is made between the claims and any particular example where an abstract idea was not found or an analogy between the claims and any particular example where an improvement to technology was found.
The applicant also goes further to list the independent claim limitations in a numbered list (Remarks, pages 13-14), but the examiner is not able to find any analogy between any particular subject-matter eligible example from the MPEP and the applicant’s claims as presented.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/15/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. In this case, the abstract idea is auctioning assets without significantly more. The claim elements that are considered the abstract idea are highlighted and the additional limitations are in boldface font below:
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, A system of infinite offer curve (IOC) on digital assets comprising:
a database configured to store digital assets;
a computing system configured to communicate with the database; and,
an application executable by a processor of a user computing device having a display screen with a graphical user interface (GUI) display screen to display computer-generated images thereon and to communicate with the computing system, wherein the application is configured to display the computer-generated images of the application on the GUI and have the processor execute an algorithm with instructions to:
allow a digital asset creator to create a digital asset on an infinite offer curve (IOC) platform, wherein the IOC platform divides initial shares of the digital asset into digital creator residual shares that cannot be sold, digital creator shares available for sale, and liquidity shares available for sale;
offer a percentage of the digital creator shares in the digital asset for sale;
conduct an auction at a time of listing the digital creator shares for sale;
determine an initial threshold price for the digital creator shares;
wherein the auction is conducted by inviting fans to participate in an initial offering of the digital creator shares in the digital asset, bidding by the fans a set amount at a price level to purchase an interest in the digital asset, and aggregating all bids made by the fans to determine by the IOC platform the initial threshold price and number of liquidity shares to be issued and sold against the digital creator shares for sale; and
issue the liquidity shares at the initial threshold price determined by the IOC platform and selling the liquidity shares to successful bidders in the auction on a prorate basis in accordance with the bids made.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to allow the IOC platform to continue to issue and sell the liquidity shares incrementally to the bidders purchasing liquidity shares above the initial threshold price.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, The system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the computing system is configured to, once the initial threshold price is reached, make the digital creator shares available by the digital asset creator to sell.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, The system as set forth in claim 3, wherein the computing system is configured to, once the digital creator shares are no longer available, allow the IOC platform to resume issuing and selling of the liquidity shares.
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to link and layer the digital assets.
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, The system as set forth in claim 5, wherein the layers are building blocks in a listening pathway, each layer being a type used to create an overall user experience.
As per claim 7, The system as set forth in claim 6, wherein the system (i) obtains total minutes streamed per subscriber per asset in the listening pathway, (ii) allocates a subscriber’s fee proportionally to the total minutes and (iii) applies stored pass-through percentages across the layers and record payouts, and paid based on the listening pathway.
21. (New) The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the liquidity shares are issued inversely proportional to a current threshold price and that the total liquidity shares grow logarithmically with price increases.
22. (New) The system as set forth in claim 5 wherein a directed graph of digital assets is stored and, upon revenue events, retains a first percentage and passes through a second percentage to linked lower-layer assets, with an optional time-weighted split.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “computing system”, “application”, “display screen with a graphical user interface”, “processor of a user computing system” and “digital asset” as generically claimed, are further considered recognized by the courts as performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions related to receiving or transmitting data (see: MPEP, 2106.05).
In sum, the examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. InvestPic, “[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter.
For the reasons stated, the examiner does not find the claims to recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 are allowable over the prior art.
The most remarkable prior art of record is:
Bhogal et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0073410)
Podsiadlo (AU 2001292891)
Lobo (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0059363).
The prior art fails to disclose at least the following limitations:
A system of infinite offer curve (IOC) on digital assets comprising:
a database configured to store digital assets;
a computing system configured to communicate with the database; and,
an application executable by a processor of a user computing device having a display screen with a graphical user interface (GUI) display screen to display computer-generated images thereon and to communicate with the computing system, wherein the application is configured to display the computer-generated images of the application on the GUI and have the processor execute an algorithm with instructions to:
allow a digital asset creator to create a digital asset on an infinite offer curve (IOC) platform, wherein the IOC platform divides initial shares of the digital asset into digital creator residual shares that cannot be sold, digital creator shares available for sale, and liquidity shares available for sale;
offer a percentage of the digital creator shares in the digital asset for sale;
conduct an auction at a time of listing the digital creator shares for sale;
determine an initial threshold price for the digital creator shares;
wherein the auction is conducted by inviting fans to participate in an initial offering of the digital creator shares in the digital asset, bidding by the fans a set amount at a price level to purchase an interest in the digital asset, and aggregating all bids made by the fans to determine by the IOC platform the initial threshold price and number of liquidity shares to be issued and sold against the digital creator shares for sale; and
issue the liquidity shares at the initial threshold price determined by the IOC platform and selling the liquidity shares to successful bidders in the auction on a prorate basis in accordance with the bids made.
None of the prior art of record remedies the deficiencies found Bhogal and Podsiadlo. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, provide any reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited form attached.
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 SEYE IWARERE whose telephone number is (571)270-5112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 16:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834