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 Claims
This is a Final Office Action on the merits, in response to the amendment filed on June 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending hand have been fully examined. Claims 15-20 have been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1–20. In the present application, claims 1–6, 13 and 15-20 are directed to a system (i.e., product) and claims 7–12 and 14 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A, prong 1.
The limitations of independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claim 7, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A system configured to determine content for a narrative based on user input related to the narrative, the system comprising:
electronic storage configured to store a narrative, wherein the narrative includes content that is classified as active content or inactive content, wherein the active content is presented and available as the narrative progresses, wherein the inactive content is available within the narrative upon trigger events associated with the inactive content occurring, wherein the active content within the narrative is recorded on a decentralized ledger;
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
effectuate presentation of the narrative via a client computing platform associated with a user;
receive an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide user input, the one or more tokens being held in a digital wallet associated with the user;
obtain, via the client computing platform, user input in relation to the active content; and
initiate a smart contract configured to:
receive the user input;
determine whether the user input satisfies one or more of the trigger events;
determine the inactive content for presentation upon determination that one or more of the trigger events was satisfied;
transmit an indication to the one or more processors to effectuate presentation of the inactive content, wherein effectuating presentation of the inactive content reclassifies the inactive content as the active content; and
generate and execute a set of instructions to record reclassification of the inactive content as the active content on the decentralized ledger, wherein recording on the decentralized ledger signifies that the inactive content reclassified as the active content is part of the narrative and cannot be reverted back to the inactive content, thereby causing the narrative to be immutable upon completion;
determine whether one or more checkpoints within the narrative are met following the reclassification of the inactive content to the active content;
define a segment of the narrative occurring between a pair of the checkpoints within the narrative as a segment entity;
determine an ownership portion of a digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with the segment entity;
generate and execute a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger.
Limitations A, H-J and M-O under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers an abstract idea that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the process of determining and managing the content of a narrative to classify content as active or inactive based on user actions, recording the progress through the narrative, and doing so according to instructions fits within the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people which includes social activities and following rules or instructions. One example is a group of people playing a tabletop role playing game (e.g., Dungeons and Dragons®) with a game master who guides the users through the narrative, offers choices, tracks which narrative paths are unlocked, tracks the players’ progress and choices, and executes the instructions of the particular scenario or narrative story being played. Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, prong 2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of electronic storage (limitation B), one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions (limitation C), a client computing platform (limitation D, F), a smart contract (i.e., more instructions, limitation G), a digital wallet (limitation E), and a decentralized ledger (limitations B, L, P). The additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, each additional element is not interacting with any other additional element or with the abstract idea in a meaningful way. As such the claim amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea in particular technological environment, i.e., “apply it.” Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed under Step 2A, prong 2. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are not patent eligible.
Analysis of dependent claims 2–6 and 8–14 identifies additional limitations which bring about improvements of the abstract idea only by dynamically managing narrative content through structured, processes, specifically, through the use of a tiered accessibility structure (Claim 2 and 8); logic conditions requiring specific user input patterns (Claims 3, 9 13 and 14); the active content progress (Claim 4 and 10); exporting completed segments; creating new narrative assets (Claim 5 and 11) a digital wallet including a tracked address (Claim 6 and 12).
Similarly, analysis of new dependent claims 15-20 identifies additional limitations which bring about improvements of the abstract idea, specifically through the claim recitations (the judicial exceptions are identified in bold below):
wherein the one or more of the trigger events include a trigger event associated with an occurrence of a real world event, wherein an indication of the occurrence of the real world event is received by the one or more processors from an external resource. (claim 15)
wherein the smart contract is further configured to generate and execute a third set of instructions to record, on the decentralized ledger, changes to the narrative made by the user via the user input, separately from the reclassification of the inactive content as the active content. (claim 16)
wherein the smart contract is further configured to:
receive a second amount of one or more tokens spent by a second user to provide second user input in relation to the active content; and
determine a second ownership portion of the digital asset for the second user based on the second amount of the one or more tokens;
wherein the ownership portion of the user and the second ownership portion of the second user are proportional to respective amounts of tokens spent by the user and the second user. (claim 17)
wherein the smart contract is further configured to determine that different ones of the trigger events require different amounts of the one or more tokens to be spent by the user, and wherein the smart contract is configured to receive the different amounts of the one or more tokens corresponding to the different ones of the trigger events satisfied by the user input. (claim 18)
wherein the narrative is virtually interactive and includes virtual items within a virtual setting, and wherein the user is represented within the virtual setting by a character configured to interact with the virtual items to generate the user input. (claim 19)
wherein the decentralized ledger is a private permissioned blockchain configured to restrict access to recorded information to authorized participants. (claim 20)
The additional elements reciting the “electronic” or “digital” nature of the information or narrative assets does not provide more than a general link to the technological environment in the dependent claims, so the outcome of the analysis is the same as for claims 1 and 7. In addition, the additional elements of the one or more processors, the smart contract and the decentralized ledger, previously recited in independent claims 1 and 7, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7 under Step 2A, prong 2, and step 2B.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peterson et al. (US 2014/0004934 A1) in view of Soon-Shiong et al. (US 2021/0281569 A1). and in further view of Quigley et al. (US 2022/0351195 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7. Peterson, which like present Application is directed to content classification for media content (i.e., game, story) teaches:
1. A system configured to determine content for a narrative based on user input related to the narrative, the system comprising:
electronic storage configured to store a narrative, [As shown, the storage 208 of the gaming device 110 includes in-game content 114 that comprise playable subject matter for the video game application 112 (i.e., narrative) (Peterson 0050)]
wherein the narrative includes content that is classified as active content or inactive content, [In one embodiment, some portion of the in-game content 114, sometimes referred to as "unlockable" content, is included within the video game application 112 but is made inaccessible to the user 100 during operation of the video game application 112. (i.e., inactive content) (0050)
wherein the active content is presented and available as the narrative progresses, [While the user 100 is actively operating the video game application 112 (i.e., active content presented as the narrative progresses), the GUI screen 600 generates one or more notification messages 606 to notify the user 100 that some in-game content 114 has been successfully unlocked. (0072)]
wherein the inactive content is available within the narrative upon trigger events associated with the inactive content occurring, [Such content, referred to as "locked" or "unlockable content," may be later unlocked by some action performed by a player or user. (0004); The video game application uses content recognition techniques to identify the media content from the capture audio signal and, based on the recognized media content, unlocks "premium" in-game content that augment gameplay of the video game application. (0019); As shown in an enlarged view, the gaming device 110 includes in-game content 114 that is included within the video game application 112 but is made inaccessible to the user. According to one embodiment, the video game application 112 is configured to unlock the in-game content 114 based on an association with one or more works of media content 104, as described in detail below. (0032); in one approach, the in-game content 114 may be unlocked by a player's progress through the video game and by accomplishing one or more gaming objectives. (0053); FIG. 6B illustrates the example GUI screen 600 shown in FIG. 6A subsequent to one or more portions of the in-game content 114 being unlocked. (0073)]
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: [the gaming device 110 generally includes a processor 204 connected via a bus 212 to a memory 206, a network interface device 210, a storage 208, an input device 214, and an output device 216. (0043)]
effectuate presentation of the narrative via a client computing platform associated with a user; [The output device 216 may be any device for providing output to a user of the gaming device 110. For example, the output device 216 may be any conventional display screen or set of speakers, along with their respective interface cards. (0045)]
obtain, via the client computing platform, user input in relation to the active content; and [to unlock one or more portions of in-game content 114, the user 100 operates the gaming device 110 to play the video game application 112 (i.e., ongoing user inputs in relation to active content) while concurrently watching media content 104 encoded with the watermark, for example, playing on the television 106. (0034); The input device 214 may be any device for providing input to the gaming device 110. For example, a keyboard and/or mouse may be used. According to one embodiment, the input device 214 may include one or more sensors configured to provide an input signal based on stimulus from an environment external to the gaming device 110. For example, the input device 214 may be a microphone configured to capture sound and convert the sound into an audio data signal. In another example, the input device 214 may include a camera or other image-capturing device configured to capture light and convert the light into a video signal or other image-based data signal. (0045);
receive the user input; [the video game application 112 includes one or more avatars that may be player-controlled … An avatar generally refers to any visual object in the video game which movement and/or actions may be controlled directly by a player (0049); The GUI screen 600 includes an avatar 602 controlled by the user 100 within a game environment 604. While the user 100 is actively operating the video game application 112, the GUI screen 600 generates one or more notification messages 606 to notify the user 100 that some in-game content 114 has been successfully unlocked. (0072)]
determine whether the user input satisfies one or more of the trigger events; determine the inactive content for presentation upon determination that one or more of the trigger events was satisfied; [in one approach, the in-game content 114 may be unlocked by a player's progress through the video game and by accomplishing one or more gaming objectives. For example, additional in-game content for a racing game may be unlocked by completing and winning all races within the video game application. Further, the in-game content 114 may be unlocked by achievement of one or more meta-goals defined outside of the video game's parameters, for example, by collecting a certain number of special "wheels" or other bonus items during races or, in another example, by complete races under a pre-determined time limit. In another approach, the in-game content 114 may be unlocked by monetary transactions that purchase access to the in-game content 114. It should be recognized that any of the techniques described above may be combined in any suitable combination. For example, a player may earn an in-game currency during gameplay (e.g., special "wheels") that may be later traded in for access to the in-game content 114. The player may also use real monetary transactions to purchase additional amounts of in-game currency, which, in turn, may be traded in for access to the in-game content 114. (0053)]
transmit an indication to the one or more processors to effectuate presentation of the inactive content, wherein effectuating presentation of the inactive content reclassifies the inactive content as the active content; and [In step 422, responsive to determining that one or more portions of in-game content 114 are to be unlocked, the video game application 112 modifies a state of the in-game content 114 to represent that the in-game content has been unlocked (i.e., reclassifying the inactive content as active content). The video game application 112 then modified the virtual gaming environment to incorporate the unlocked in-game content 114.
wherein the active content within the narrative is recorded … ; and generate and execute a set of instructions to record reclassification of the inactive content as the active content … ; [the video game application 112 modifies the virtual gaming environment with a persistent change that incorporates the unlocked portion of locked content. For example, changes to the virtual gaming environment may persist between gaming sessions, such that the unlocked portion of locked content remains available after the video game application has been terminated and later restarted. Additional examples of modifying the virtual gaming environment are described further in conjunction with FIGS. 5A-5B, and 6A-6B. (0069)]
determine whether one of the checkpoints is met in the narrative based on the reclassification of the inactive content to the active content and the user input; [0053];
define a segment of the narrative occurring between a pair of the checkpoints within the narrative as a segment entity; [0047]
determine an ownership portion of a digital asset based on an amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with a segment entity, [a portion (segment) of in-game content is unlocked: 0052, user purchases unlocked portion (ownership of a segment) by monetary transactions using in-game currency (token): 0053, Claims 1-2)
However, Peterson does not expressly disclose (in italics):
wherein the active content within the narrative is recorded on a decentralized ledger;
generate and execute a set of instructions to record the reclassification and the active content on the decentralized ledger; initiate a smart contract configured to, in an ongoing manner; or wherein recording on the decentralized ledger signifies that the inactive content reclassified as the active content is part of the narrative and cannot be reverted back to the inactive content, thereby causing the narrative to be immutable upon completion.
Nonetheless, Soon-Shiong, which like the present Application is directed to enhancing the content of media experiences using distributed ledger technology, teaches:
wherein the active content within the narrative is recorded on a decentralized ledger; generate and execute a set of instructions to record the reclassification and the active content on the decentralized ledger, [distributed ledger technologies (i.e., decentralized ledgers) that are built to store data or form smart contracts possibly leveraging the Ethereum platform may be preferable. (Soon-Shiong 0071)]
NOTE: The use of Ethereum as the distributed ledger for storing smart contracts is within the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with at least 0039 of Applicant’s disclosure that establishes that “the distributed computing platform may be Ethereum.”
wherein recording on the decentralized ledger signifies that the inactive content reclassified as the active content cannot be reverted back to the inactive content, thereby causing the narrative to be immutable upon completion.
NOTE: The limitation above recites what the information on the distributed ledger “signifies,” and because the content of that information does not affect how a positively recited method step, or function of the claimed system, is performed, it is interpreted as non-functional descriptive material that does not distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, given that Soon-Shiong teaches recording the content of the narrative media on a blockchain such as Etherium, and that immutability is a characteristic of blockchain technology, one of skill in the art would have understood from the combination of Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong that narrative content recorded on the Etherium blockchain becomes immutable.
and initiate a smart contract configured to: [For example, editions that have rules that cooperate with enteral third parties (e.g., advertisers, public submissions, government agencies, etc.), which can be embodied within a smart contract governing the interaction. As the third party fulfills their side of the contract (e.g., pay fees, complete a story, provide submission, etc.), the edition can take reciprocal action (e.g., incorporate advertisement, incorporate notices, etc.). Such smart contracts can be coded in Solidity, the Ethereum smart contract coding language. Thus, one aspect of the inventive subject matter is considered to include editions having attribute-value pairs or rules that interact with smart contracts (Soon-Shiong 0071)]
Thus, Soon-Shiong teaches that a narrative media, such as an electronic newspaper, can be implemented and stored on a distributed ledger that manages access to content by monitoring user inputs like paying fees, completing a story, or completing a puzzle. These user inputs or actions then trigger a reciprocal action by the eNewspaper. In one example, Soon-Shiong at -0149 teaches:
Games, puzzles, or other forms of interactive entertainment could be published as an edition. Video game having various levels or features could include a story where the story is broken down by challenges or chapters. Each chapter could be released as an individual edition with original content representing specific story points with which a consumer engages. The game chapter can include a lifetime representing how long a player might have to overcome challenges ( e.g., physical challenges tracked via sensors in a smart phone or fitness sensor, location-based activities, puzzles, etc.). Such chapters or challenges can be released periodically as desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed Application to modify how the video game content of Peterson is managed and presented to the user, by storing the user’s progress with active content in a distributed or decentralized ledger, as taught by Soon-Shiong, and by monitoring user actions with a smart contract that triggers reciprocal actions in the narrative content, also as taught by Soon-Shiong. Peterson shows this type of narrative structure was known in the interactive media arts. Soon-Shiong also teaches this type of narrative structure in interactive media, primarily eNewspapers, but expressly acknowledges the same applicability to video games, as in Peterson. The prior art therefore teaches all of the claimed elements and Soon-Shiong shows the only real difference is that Peterson does not implement itself on distributed ledger using smart contracts to monitor user inputs, while Soon-Shiong simply lacks more detail on the specific environment of video games. The techniques required to combine these features are taught in the references themselves, and thus would have been available and known to one of skill in the art, with each element functioning in combination as they do individually. Soon-Shiong 0149, quoted above (as well as 0044, 0077, and 0125) provides evidence that one of skill in the art would have found the results of this combination to be predictable.
However, the combination of Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong does not explicitly teach:
receive an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide the user input, the one or more tokens being held in a digital wallet associated with the user;
generate and execute a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger;
Nonetheless, Quigley, which like the present Application is directed to recording information about narrative games on a blockchain, teaches:
receive an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide the user input, [0631], the one or more tokens being held in a digital wallet associated with the user; [0193; 0212]:
determine an ownership portion of the digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens used by the user, [0196; 0305]
the digital asset being correlated with a segment entity corresponding to a pair of checkpoints in the narrative; [0120; 0327 “In embodiments, the tokenization platform 100 includes a video game integration system 808. The video game integration system 808 allows video game makers to place tokens in video games…In response to a user transacting for a token, the video game integration system 808 may update the distributed ledger to reflect the new ownership of the token.”; 0363].
generate and execute a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger. [0327].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate exchanging tokens for digital items/assets as disclosed by Quigley to facilitate gaming transactions.
Regarding claims 2 and 8. Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches claims 1 and 7 above. Peterson further teaches:
wherein the content includes tiers for the inactive content, wherein the tiers indicate an order of accessibility of the inactive content by way of the trigger events associated with the inactive content. [0032; 0050; 0053; 0066; 0070; 0083].
Regarding claims 3 and 9. Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches claims 2 and 8 above. Peterson further teaches:
wherein the tiers include a first tier, and a second tier, and wherein at least one trigger event requires a user interaction or user answer as a user input in the first tier, and wherein at least one additional trigger event requires a plurality of user inputs in the second tier. [0032; 0050; 0053; 0066; 0070; 0083].
Regarding claims 4 and 10. Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches claims 1 and 7 above. Peterson further teaches:
wherein the active content progresses towards the checkpoints. [0032; 0051; 0053; 0068].
Regarding claims 5 and 11. Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches claims 4 and 10 above. Peterson further teaches:
export the narrative between the pair of checkpoints as the segment entity; [0047]; and
store the segment entity in the electronic storage; and [0051].
However, the combination of Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong does not explicitly teach mint the digital asset that is correlated with the segment entity.
Nonetheless, Quigley teaches:
mint a digital asset that is correlated with the segment entity [0120; 0327 “In embodiments, the tokenization platform 100 includes a video game integration system 808. The video game integration system 808 allows video game makers to place tokens in video games…In response to a user transacting for a token, the video game integration system 808 may update the distributed ledger to reflect the new ownership of the token.”; 0363].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate minting rules as disclosed by Quigley to facilitate gaming transactions.
Regarding claims 6 and 12. Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 7 above. Quigley further teaches:
wherein the digital wallet includes an address that is tracked on the decentralized ledger. [0193; 0212]:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate minting rules as disclosed by Quigley to facilitate gaming transactions.
Regarding claims 13 and 14 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 9 above. Peterson further teaches:
wherein the tiers further include a third tier, and wherein at least one other trigger event requires a particular user input in the third tier. [0032; 0050; 0053; 0066; 0070; 0083].
Regarding claim 15 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Peterson further teaches:
wherein the one or more of the trigger events include a trigger event associated with an occurrence of a real world event, wherein an indication of the occurrence of the real world event is received by the one or more processors from an external resource. [Such content, referred to as "locked" or "unlockable content," may be later unlocked by some action performed by a player or user. (0004).
The examiner notes that “an action by a player” as taught by Peterson is a real world event and the source of the action (player or user) is an outside source.
Regarding claim 16 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Soon-Shiong further teaches:
wherein the smart contract is further configured to generate and execute a third set of instructions to record, on the decentralized ledger, changes to the narrative made by the user via the user input, separately from the reclassification of the inactive content as the active content. (content update rules (third set of instructions) apply content/edition updates provided by editor or publisher (user): [0045]-[0046], [0048]-[0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed Application to modify how the video game content of Peterson is managed and presented to the user, by storing the updated content provider by user based on content update rules, as taught by Soon-Shiong, in order to track changes for archival purposes (Soon-Shiong: [0074])
NOTE: The claim limitation “to record, on the decentralized ledger, changes to the narrative…” indicates intended use of the instructions and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “recording of the changes” is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 17 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Quigley further teaches:
receive a second amount of one or more tokens spent by a second user to provide second user input in relation to the active content; [0631], [0193; 0212]:
determine a second ownership portion of the digital asset for the second user based on the second amount of the one or more tokens; [0196; 0305]
wherein the ownership portion of the user and the second ownership portion of the second user are proportional to respective amounts of tokens spent by the user and the second user. (user’s voting power proportionate to the amount of tokens they obtain: [0364], [0384] and the amount of tokens they obtain is proportionate to the payment they make: [0425]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate proportionate ownership of tokens as taught by Quigley to provide different levels of authority to different users.
Regarding claim 18 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Quigley further teaches:
wherein the smart contract is further configured to determine that different ones of the trigger events require different amounts of the one or more tokens to be spent by the user, and wherein the smart contract is configured to receive the different amounts of the one or more tokens corresponding to the different ones of the trigger events satisfied by the user input. (smart contract uses analytics data to determine item (trigger event) price: [0060]-[0063], [0438], [0459], smart contract receives/handles payment: [0438], [0449])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate price and payment management by a smart contract, as taught by Quigley to enable the user to reliably receive different services with different value. (Quigley: [0004]-[0005])
Regarding claim 19 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Quigley further teaches:
wherein the narrative is virtually interactive and includes virtual items within a virtual setting, and wherein the user is represented within the virtual setting by a character configured to interact with the virtual items to generate the user input. (virtual world using avatar of users: [0252], [0304]-[0305])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate the virtual world in which a user is presented by an avatar, as taught by Quigley to provide flexibility and convenience of working with virtual items. (Quigley: [0004])
Regarding claim 20 Peterson in view of Soon-Shiong and Quigley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Quigley further teaches:
wherein the decentralized ledger is a private permissioned blockchain configured to restrict access to recorded information to authorized participants. (private ledger: [0215], [0251] in which only authorized entities can participate: [0217])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of NFT gaming tokens, before the effective filing date of the claimed Application, to integrate the private ledger, as taught by Quigley to provide secure transactions.
NOTE: The claim limitation describes a decentralized ledger which is not a component of the claimed system. Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, merely recites storing on a distributed ledger without claiming the distributed ledger as a component of the claimed system. Therefore, the claim recitation is not given patentable weight, because the type of the distributed ledger does not affect the structure or the features of the claimed system.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejections, on page 14 Applicant asserts:
… the Rejection Fails Under Prong One Because The Office Action Fails To Show The Claims "Recite" An Abstract Idea....
…the rejection is deficient because the Office Action fails to identify or define a concept which is set forth or described by the claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s remarks proscribe an overly narrow interpretation of the guidance and analysis for subject matter eligibility. The examiner notes that, as a “claim” recites multiple steps/components that together represent a “single” process/system, the bold steps/components identified by the examiner in the rejection, represent steps of a “single” abstract idea. In addition, as discussed in the Interview on June 4, 2026, and in the previous Office Action the abstract idea is "the process of determining and managing the content of a narrative to classify content as active or inactive based on user actions, recording the progress through the narrative, and doing so according to instructions fits within the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people which includes social activities and following rules or instructions." The examiner notes that contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the described abstract idea defines the concept set forth in the claim. For example, claim 1 recitations “store a narrative…effectuate presentation of the narrative, transmit an indication to the one or more processors to effectuate presentation of the inactive content…effectuate presentation of the inactive content, … record reclassification of the inactive content as the active content …” indicate “the process of determining and managing the content of a narrative,” as noted as part of the abstract idea. In addition, the claim recitations “receive the user input, determine whether the user input satisfies one or more of the trigger events, determine the inactive content for presentation upon determination that the one or more of the trigger events was satisfied …” indicates “classifying content as active or inactive based on user actions” as also noted as part of the abstract idea. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the abstract idea identified by the examiner summarizes the concept set forth in the claim.
Applicant further argues, on page 15, that the identified abstract idea fails to account for the claim limitations below, because the limitations are distinct operations with distinct input and output:
receiving an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide the user input;
determining an ownership portion of a digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with a segment entity corresponding to a pair of checkpoints in the narrative; and
generating and executing a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user,
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the identified abstract idea still encompasses the above amendments as, the “receiving an amount spent by the user” falls within user input/activity and “determining” and “generating” steps fall within the concept of managing content of a narrative. In addition, these functionalities can be characterized as a fundamental economic practice carried out in the context of interactions between people participating in a shared narrative experience. The examiner further notes that even abstract ideas that organize and/or automate human activities are distinct operations with distinct input and output. Therefore being a distinct operations with distinct input and output is not a sufficient characteristic to make a claim limitation eligible under 101.
Applicant further argues, on page 16, that the identified abstract idea corresponds to a generic, medium-agnostic recording step, while the claim recites recording on a specific type of medium (a decentralized ledger) and that recitation carries substantive meaning.
The examiner respectfully notes that the medium in which information pertaining to the abstract idea is recorded has been identified as an additional element for consideration at Step 2A, prong 2 and as such does not set forth or describe the abstract idea identified at Step 2A, prong 1. Second, having “substantive meaning” is not an established consideration in the subject matter eligibility analytical framework set forth at MPEP 2106.05(a) through (h).
Applicant further argues, on page 16, that the identified abstract idea fails to state sub-groupings of the abstract idea, because the office action relies on an “or” in identifying the abstract idea as "managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people which includes social activities and following rules or instructions."
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the articulated groupings and subgroupings are exemplary and the abstract idea set forth or described in the claim does not need to exactly match those examples but simply needs to reasonably fall within the grouping. Applicant has not articulated why the abstract idea identified in the action does not reasonably fall within the grouping.
Applicant further asserts, on page 17, that:
the Office Action's primary statement of explanation is that the identified abstract idea "fits within the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people which includes social activities and following rules or instructions." This is a conclusion, not an explanation. Asserting that a concept "fits within" a category does not explain why it belongs there, it simply restates the outcome of an analysis without performing the analysis.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the grouping is self-explanatory, because the claim steps clearly recite “determining content of a narrative based on user input,” at least in the preamble. Determining content of a narrative is a known human activity. According to Applicant’s disclosure: “The narrative may include content that is classified as active content or inactive content. The content may include one or more of a description, a visual content item, an audible content item, haptic content, and/or other content.” (paragraph [0015]) Therefore, managing the “narrative” and the “content” as described in the Specification, is clearly an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts, on page 18, with respect to the role-playing game analogy that:
even accepting the analogy for those aspects, it has no analog whatsoever for the token-based ownership determination or the recording of ownership interests on a decentralized ledger, which the Office Action itself treated as part of the abstract idea through bold emphasis.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the concept of token-based ownership is an abstract idea because it represents an ownership in real world by a human being when, for example, a player obtains points (i.e., tokens) within the role-playing game, which can be spent on ability scores (i.e., assets) that are recorded in a score point cost table (i.e., ledger). This is fundamental economic practice of accumulating tokens, exchanging them for items of value, and tracking token balances and transactions on a ledger.
The “distributed ledger” which does not appear in bold is an additional element that is merely a tool for recording asset ownership which, for example, automates and replaces table in which the ownership of the asset can be recorded and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant further asserts, on pages 19-20 that the office action fails to identify all additional elements, stating that the following claim limitations have not been evaluated under prong 2, as additional elements:
receiving an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide the user input, the one or more tokens being held in a digital wallet associated with the user;
determining an ownership portion of a digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with a segment entity; and
generating and executing a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger
The examiner respectfully disagrees and noted that the above claim recitations are not additional elements. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the above claim limitations do not fall outside the boundaries of abstract idea but are part of the abstract idea as they describe receiving user input, determining user ownership of an asset, and recording the ownership, which is still part of the abstract idea. The “decentralized ledger” is the only additional element in the claim limitations, which is used as a tool for recording the ownership.
Applicant further asserts, on pages 19-20 that the office action fails to identify actual claim elements, further asserting that what remains after the Office Action's bold extraction is not a set of discrete limitations, and that the “on a decentralized ledger” is not a claim element
The examiner respectfully notes that the reason that the “non-bold” claim portions do not look like discrete limitations is that the discrete limitations of the claim such as, for example, “generate and execute a set of instructions…” is an abstract idea and the only portion of the claim that is not an abstract idea is that the instruction is generated “on a decentralized ledger” which is merely a tool for storing the instructions, but not sufficient to overcome the interpretation of the abstract idea.
Applicant further assets, on pages 21-22, that the Additional Elements Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application. Applicant further repeats amended claim portions and assets that “this ordered execution sequence, performed by a specifically configured smart contract operating against checkpoint-bounded narrative data, produces a distributed ledger state that is both technically permanent and economically verifiable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant fails to explain what the improved technology is. A distributed ledger which is “technically permanent and economically verifiable,” is not a sufficient reasoning to show that the claim provides an improvement to computer functionality, a technology or technical field.
Applicant further, on pages 22-23 provides discussions comparting the present claims with respect to Enfish and McRO.
The examiner respectfully notes that the comparison is erroneous, because Enfish is related to a database design as a self-referential data storage, and McRO is related to facial impression recognition, which are not compatible to the present claims.
Applicant further argues, on page 24, that the Office Action provides no evidence that, as of the effective filing date, smart contracts were routinely configured to perform this specific ordered sequence recited in the claim: “evaluating trigger conditions against user input, verifying checkpoint satisfaction following content reclassification, defining bounded segment entities from checkpoint delimited narrative data, and generating two distinct sets of blockchain instructions in a single execution sequence to record both a content state change and a corresponding ownership interest.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that firstly, the above sequence is Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language and not the actual claim recitation.” Secondly, the basis for rejection is not that whether smart contracts were or were not routinely configured to perform this specific ordered sequence. The basis is that the actual sequence performed by the claim, not Applicant’s interpretation, recites an abstract idea that can be performed by human using pen and paper, and the smart contract merely automates the process.
Applicant, on page 25 argues that “no cited reference, individually or in combination, discloses this specific ordered combination.”
The examiner respectfully notes that whether a prior art discloses a claimed feature is not relevant to the 101 analysis.
With respect to the 103 rejections, the examiner respectfully notes that the amendment to independent claims 1 and 7 merely include moving some of the claim recitations up or down within the same claim and incorporating portions of amended claim 5 into the independent claims. Therefore, no new claim recitations exist in independent claims 1 and 7, and the claims are still taught by the previously cited prior art.
Applicant asserts, on pages 26-31, that the prior art does not teach the amended claims. Particularly Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach “determining ownership of a digital asset based on tokens spent.” Applicant further asserts that the current amendment correlate the digital asset with a defined narrative segment (the segment entity between a pair of checkpoints reached after reclassification), and tie the user's ownership portion of that asset to the tokens the user spent to provide the user input that drove the reclassification.
The examiner notes that the argued claim recitation is not amended. The claim recitation in question is:
determine an ownership portion of a digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with the segment entity
The examiner further notes that Quigley, which like the present Application is directed to recording information about narrative games on a blockchain, teaches receive an amount of one or more tokens spent by the user to provide the user input, [0631], the one or more tokens being held in a digital wallet associated with the user; [0193; 0212] Quigley further teaches determine an ownership portion of the digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens used by the user, [0196; 0305] and that the digital asset is correlated with a segment entity corresponding to a pair of checkpoints in the narrative; [0120; 0327 “In embodiments, the tokenization platform 100 includes a video game integration system 808. The video game integration system 808 allows video game makers to place tokens in video games…In response to a user transacting for a token, the video game integration system 808 may update the distributed ledger to reflect the new ownership of the token.”; 0363]. Therefore the claim recitation “determine an ownership portion of a digital asset based on the amount of the one or more tokens, the digital asset being correlated with the segment entity,” is taught by Quigley.
Applicant further argues, on page 30, that sufficient motivation to combine the references is not established. Applicant assert that each of the cited references addresses a different technical problem. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that firstly, the cited references of Peterson, Soon-Shiong and Quigley, are all analogous to the present Application (See MPEP 2141.01 (a)) Peterson, like present Application, is directed to content classification for media content (i.e., game, story), similarly, Soon-Shiong, like the present Application is directed to enhancing the content of media experiences using distributed ledger technology, and Quigley, like the present Application, is directed to recording information about narrative games on a blockchain. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient knowledge of the prior art.
Secondly, Applicant does not provide sufficient reasoning on why Applicant believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to integrate Soon-Shiong’s and Quigley’s teachings into the teachings of Peterson. The examiner respectfully notes that the cited references are directed to managing media content, where each reference concerns with part of the existing issues in the field of endeavor at the time of its filing. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient reasons to come across the cited prior art when searching for solutions to content customization and management, and solving issues such as classification, activation, and traceability.
Applicant further argues that the office action does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have integrated Soon-Shiong's distributed ledger architecture into Peterson's watermark-recognition system, what problem in Peterson that combination would solve, or what the resulting system would look like at a technical level.
The examiner respectfully notes that firstly, Peterson’s is not a watermarking system, as watermarks in Peterson are used similar to the checkpoints in the present Application. Secondly, a person of ordinary skill in the art is supposedly looking for a solution for the problem the present Applicant is allegedly solving and not a problem with Peterson’s system, and thirdly, the resulting system of the combination would be a system close enough to the claimed system to provide the same features.
Applicant further argues that the claim recitation "wherein recording on the decentralized ledger signifies that the inactive content reclassified as the active content is part of the narrative and cannot be reverted back to the inactive content, thereby causing the narrative to be immutable upon completion" identified as non-functional descriptive material, must be given patentable weight.
The examiner respectfully notes that if Applicant wants the recitation to gain patentable weight, the claim recitation must be amended to instead of describing what the recording “signifies” recite how the recording affect the features of the claimed system and method.
With respect to newly added claims 15-20, the claims are rendered obvious based on the prior art rejections provided in the office action.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Rosenberg (US 2023/0385967 ) teaches recording media content on a distributed ledger for immutability. Le (US 2023/0419283,) teaches operating a content marketplace using blockchain technology for efficient monetization of non-fungible tokens linked to underlying content.
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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
