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 .
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 2-3, 5-8, 10-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a non-transitory computer readable medium and method, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 2 or claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea of acquiring a fingerprint of a physical object, by extracting feature vectors from points of interest on a surface of the physical object, wherein characterizes the physical object such that a match between two extractions approaches near-absolute certainty; creating an associated digital file ("ADF") of the physical object in a secure datastore, wherein the ADF defines a right to access and/or use the physical object; storing the fingerprint of the physical object in association with the ADF to securely and uniquely link the ADF to the physical object as a counterpart in an unspoofable manner; initializing a digital ledger stored in or linked to the ADF, the digital ledger storing at least one asset-backed access token representing a right to access and/or use the physical object; receiving the at least one asset-backed access token that represents the right to access and/or use the physical object from a user; in response to receiving the access token from the user, providing an access right to the physical object to the user, wherein an interest represented by the access token stored in the ledger includes a limited right to use the physical object, such that when the access right to the physical object is provided to the user the user is provided with the limited right to use the physical object; in response to the providing of the access right to the user, monitoring a usage of the physical object; determining when the usage exceeds the limited right to use the physical object; when the usage exceeds the limited right to use the physical object, altering the right to use or access the physical object; and updating to realize the access or usage of the physical object by the user. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 16 include: digital; memory storing program code; a digital processor to execute the stored program code; and a secure datastore operatively coupled to the digital processor; the digital ledger; the digital fingerprint. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed method/system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of: digital; memory storing program code; a digital processor to execute the stored program code; and a secure datastore operatively coupled to the digital processor; the digital ledger; the digital fingerprint is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 2 and 16 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 2 and 16 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10-15 and 22-23, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 2. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 17 and 19-21, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 16. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 2 and 16 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claims amendments.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to 101 rejection claim 2 and claim 3, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case does not make specific improvement to the technology. In the current limitation, the processor is a generic processor. The applicant has not improved the conventional processor. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
