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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits. The Office has received claims 1–14 in application 18/348,569.
New claims 13–14 have been newly added.
Claims 1–12 are currently amended and have been examined.
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 1–14 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 1–14. In the present application, claims 1–6 and 13 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;
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;
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;
determine 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;
generate and execute a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger;
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.
Limitations A, G–I and M 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 proceed 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 (limitations C, J), a client computing platform (limitation D, E), a smart contract (i.e., more instructions, limitation F), a digital wallet (limitation L), and a decentralized ledger (limitations B, K, N, O). 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); logic conditions requiring specific user input patterns (Claims 3 and 13); the incorporation of narrative checkpoints (Claim 4); exporting completed segments; creating new narrative assets (Claim 5) and a digital wallet including a tracked address (Claim 6). 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 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1–14 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 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 completely races under by 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 tum, 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 persistent 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 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 corresponding to a pair of checkpoints in the narrative, [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 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 invention 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 invention 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 invention 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 invention, to integrate minting rules 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 narrative includes checkpoints including the pair of checkpoints, and 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:
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];
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 invention, 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 invention, 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].
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 applicant asserts:
…it is noted that, from the interview of July 23, 2025, it was confirmed that rewriting dependent claim 6 in independent form including all the features of independent claim 1 and intervening claims would result in a patent eligible claim.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no such confirmation is recorded in the Summary of the Interview conducted on July 23, 2025.
On pages 11–12, Applicant, after restating the rejection, asserts:
… the Rejection Fails Under Prong One Because The Office Action Fails To Show The Claims "Recite" An Abstract Idea…the Office Action Does Not Identify Or Define A Single Idea Which Is Supposedly Abstract And Present In 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.
On pages 13–14, Applicant, after restating the rejection, asserts:
… the Office Action's Reliance On "Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity" Is Erroneous… While the Office Action lists these various sub-categories, it fails to identify or define the particular personal behavior, relationship, social activity, rule, or instruction to which the claims are allegedly directed… the Office Action's attempt to characterize the claims as a "method of organizing human activity," comparable to "a group of people playing a tabletop role-playing game," misstates both the nature of the claimed invention and the legal standard
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant does not provide sufficient reasoning as to why and how characterizing the claims as a method of organizing human activity, comparable to a group of people playing a tabletop role-playing game, misstates the nature of the claimed invention and the legal standard. Applicant merely quotes MPEP Section 2106.04(a)(2) II, as “it must fall within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people.” The examiner notes that this is exactly what the examiner clarified in the previous action using the game example explaining how the identified abstract idea falls under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically as managing personal relationships, behaviors, or interactions among people such as following rules or instructions for a tabletop role playing game.
On pages 14–15, applicant asserts that “At Least The Amended Independent Claims Describe A Concept Which Is Not Abstract.”
This argument is not persuasive because the amendment merely incorporates the subject matter of dependent claims 6 and 12 into the independent claims. Dependent claims 6 and 12 have been previously rejected under 35 USC 101 as creating ownership records based on the assets, without reciting any additional elements that amount to more than the abstract idea. Therefore, after incorporating the limitations of the dependent claim into the independent claim, the outcome of the analysis remains the same.
On pages 15–16, applicant asserts that “at least the amended independent claims provide a specific improvement in the functioning of distributed computing systems, rather than merely invoking generic components to implement a narrative concept.”
Applicant asserts, on page 15, that:
…the focus of at least the amended independent claims, as bolstered in the present disclosure, is "a specific distributed computing architecture that utilizes smart contract execution to dynamically reclassify inactive narrative segments into active content based on user interaction triggers, while simultaneously generating and executing instructions to record these irreversible state changes and associated token- derived ownership rights onto a decentralized ledger to ensure the technical immutability of the resulting narrative"… Applicant's asserted concept is not abstract. In particular, at least the amended independent claims provide a specific improvement in the functioning of distributed computing systems, rather than merely invoking generic components to implement a narrative concept.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that neither in the claims nor in the Applicant’s asserted concept, “a specific improvement in the functioning of distributed computing systems” is disclosed. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. The rejection clearly identifies the additional elements recited in the claim that are not part of the identified abstract idea and discusses why those additional elements, even in combination, provide only a general link to a technological environment or instructions to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on generic technological elements. The claims do not recite an improvement to a computer or technology such as blockchain, distributed ledger, or smart contracts. Rather, the claim uses these generic elements as tools to merely implement the abstract idea in a technological environment.
On pages 19–22 the applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the amended claims, particularly the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 7, which incorporates the subject matter of dependent claims 6 and 12.
Applicant’s remarks argue that Quigley does not teach the amendment to independent claims 1 and 7. Applicant asserts that:
…Quigley does not describe converting an amount of input tokens into a proportional share of an asset. … Quigley fails to describe distributing ownership across multiple users based on contribution. Indeed, there is no description in Quigley of calculating a variable percentage of ownership in a digital asset correlated based on the specific amount of tokens spent.(emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully notes that the above argument refer to interpretation of claimed features rather than the features which are actually claimed. For example, the present claims do not include a feature for “converting an amount of input token into a proportional share.” Similarly, the claims do not recite “distributing ownership across multiple users” or “calculating a variable percentage of ownership.” On page 19 of the remarks, Applicant provides a copy of the amended portion of claim 1, using bolded font, as “receiving an amount…
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;
determine 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
generate and execute a second set of instructions to record the ownership portion in association with the user on the decentralized ledger;
The prior art, in cited portions, may not teach Applicant’s interpretation of the amended claim, but teaches the claim amendment, as claimed.
Applicant argues that all claim limitations must be given patentable weight referring to the examiner’s comment about the limitation “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,” not having patentable weight.
The examiner respectfully notes that, as noted above in the rejection, although the limitation above is interpreted as non-functional descriptive material that does not distinguish over the prior art, however, 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. Therefore, even if the claim recitation is given patentable weight, it is still taught by the cited art.
With respect to the new claims 13 and 14, the examiner notes that the claims recite a portion of previously rejected claim 3, which is removed from claim 3 and added to the new claims. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies to the new claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keesan (US 2019/0098371) teaches media narrative presentation including multiple segments providing autonomous selection of content. Hayes (US 2008/0102422) teaches narrative development by providing co-ownership of portions of narrative. Murray (US 2022/0335414) teaches transferring ownership of portions of digital assets using blockchains. Lard (US 2021/0125284) teaches administering bundles of digital assets including enabling purchase and ownership of portions of digital assets.
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
Prosecution Insights