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 Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 27 of August 2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that any abstract idea recited in amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. Assuming, arguendo, that an abstract idea is found in the claim under Prong One, claim 1 further integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two by improving the technical field of gig-economy data management by generating storing, and providing a transferable token that is "a computer-readable token securely encapsulating a plurality of structured data entries storing indications of the one or more metrics associated with the gig-economy worker representing a profile of the gig-economy worker". The applicant further notes that "[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(a). Applicant respectfully contends the instant Applicant sufficiently discloses the generation of transferable tokens as a technical solution to the technical problem of managing the transfer of gig-economy data between parties, as discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The applicant’s argument hinges on the notion that “transferable tokens are a computer-readable token securely encapsulating a plurality of structure data entries. The examiner notes that this particular definition is not provided by the instant application, however ¶10 and ¶267 disclose that a transferable token is a user profile or information associated with a user profile which is used by third-parties to offer a new or updated policy, service, agreement, or account, therefore these transferable tokens are data files under BRI. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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"). It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claims 1, 10, and 14 do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claims 1, 10, and 14 amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 recites “the transferable token as a computer-readable token securely encapsulating a plurality of structured data entries…". However, Applicant’s specification does not expressly or inherently disclose the terms in a clear and concise manner.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 (emphasis added). “The ‘written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term. See MPEP 2163 (emphasis added).
For claims directed toward computer-implemented functions, like the presently claimed invention, “[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computational device, non-volatile memory, or non-transitory computer readable medium in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP 2161.01 (emphasis added). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could assume these items are inherently present based on Fig. 11A as disclosed in ¶260 in order to achieve the claimed function because the written description requirement requires that the specification explains how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function. Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 USC 112(a) - PowerPoint of Computer Based Training, Slides 20 & 21, (emphasis added) available at http://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/uspto_112a_ part1_17aug2015.pptx. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the function is to be performed are not disclosed. Id. at Slide 20.
Claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 depend on claims 1, 10, and 14 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, 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. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 10 recites “one or more processors; a program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to: send, by a data collector, a data request message to a gig-economy data source associated with a gig-economy platform; obtain, by a data collector application programming interface (API) of the data collector, gig performance data comprising gig metrics indicating aspects of performance of a plurality of gig-related tasks by the gig-economy worker in response to the data request message; provide, by the data collector, the gig performance data associated with the gig- economy worker to a token generator; apply, by the token generator, a machine learning model to the gig performance data to generate one or more metrics indicative of risk levels associated with performance of gig-related tasks by the gig-economy worker; generate, by the token generator, the transferable token as a computer-readable token securely encapsulating a plurality of structured data entries storing indications of the one or more metrics associated with the gig-economy worker representing a profile of the gig-economy worker; store, in a data store, the transferable token associated with the gig-economy worker; obtain, by the data collector API, additional gig-performance data comprising telematics data associated with performance of an additional gig-related activity; update, by the token generator, the transferable token using the additional gig- performance data related to the additional gig-related activity; receive, by a token request API, a token request message including an identifier of the gig-economy worker from a token consumer; and send, by the token request API, the transferable token associated with the gig- economy worker to the token consumer to enable the token consumer to access the plurality of structured data entries storing the indications of the one or more metrics associated with the gig-economy worker”. Claims 1 and 14 disclose similar limitations as Claim 10 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 10, and 14 are directed to “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 contain the same abstract idea with respect to claims 1, 10, and 14 and they further limit the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 10, and 14 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1, 10, and 14 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the remaining additional elements italicized above reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 15 recite additional element “user device”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶71 “in some embodiments, the mobile computing device 110 and the server 40 may be integrated into a single device, or either may perform the functions of both. In further embodiments, the mobile computing device 110 may be communicatively connected to one or more external sensors 120, which may provide additional or alternative data to the data obtained from the internal sensors 108. Collectively, any set of one or more of the internal sensors 108 and/or external sensors 120 may be referred to herein as the "sensors." [0072] Similar to the controller 55, the controller 210 may include a program memory 212, one or more processors or microprocessors (MP) 214, a RAM 216, and an I/O circuit 218, all of which are interconnected via an address/data bus. The program memory 212 may include an operating system 220, a data storage 222, a plurality of software applications 230, and/or a plurality of software routines 240. The operating system 220, for example, may include one of a plurality of general purpose or mobile platforms, such as the AndroidTM, iOS®, or Windows® systems, developed by Google Inc., Apple Inc., and Microsoft Corporation, respectively. Alternatively, the operating system 220 may be a custom operating system designed for operation of special-purpose hardware, such as a wearable computing device 13 or an on-board computer 11A of a vehicle 10”.
As a result, claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Further, additional elements for to sending and receiving approval requests (i.e. data) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 3-9, 11-13, and 16-20 not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 10/17/2025