Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on October 14, 2025.
Claims 5-10, 15-21, 25, 27, and 31 are cancelled.
Claims 41-42 are added.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 22-24, 26, 28-30, and 32-42 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 22-24, 26, 28-30, and 32-42 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260424 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 26 are objected to because they recite “work piece workpiece.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “work piece.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 22-24, 26, 28-30, and 32-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “consisting of user likeability to buy a work piece translated into a scan number threshold.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether “a work piece” refers to “the work piece” previously recited, or to “a second work piece.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “the work piece.”
Claim 1 recites “outputting using the trained classifier the reclassification of the creative work class utilizing the user likeability to buy a work piece translated into a scan number threshold for each work piece associated with the creative work class.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the work piece” and “the scan number threshold” previously recited, or to “a second work piece” and “a second scan number threshold.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret “the work piece” and “the scan number threshold.” Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
Claims 28-30 and 32 recite “The method of claim 1.” However, claim 1 is an apparatus claim. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “The apparatus of claim 1.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 22-24, 26, 28-30, and 32-42 of the instant application is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US patent 11,928,748.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of US patent 11,928,748.
The instant application is directed to receiving a creative work datum representing a work piece in machine format, wherein the creative work datum comprises an entry timestamp; generating a smart contract as a function of the creative work datum; identifying an identifier associated with the work piece; generating a creative work token corresponding to the identifier and entry timestamp, which comprises determining a creative work class as a function of the creative work datum; reclassifying the creative work class as a function of a number of times a machine-readable code is scanned, wherein reclassification comprises generating a classifier, which comprises a plurality of data entries containing inputs of creative work classes and outputs of user likeability to buy a work piece translated into a scan number threshold; inputting the creative work class into the trained classifier; outputting the reclassification of the creative work class; generating the smart contract as a function of the creative work token; generating a machine readable code as a function of the work token; and storing the machine readable code in an immutable sequential listing, which comprises generating a posted content of the code with a corresponding timestamp and identifier (see claim 1).
US patent 11,928,748 is directed to receiving a creative work datum; determining a creative work class as a function of the creative work datum; generating a creative work token as a function of the creative work datum; storing the creative work token in an immutable sequential listing, wherein this comprises generating a smart contract comprising the creative work class; generating a machine readable code as a function of the creative work token and creative work class; transmitting the machine readable code to an output device; tracking a number of times the machine readable code is scanned; reclassifying the creative work class as a function of the number of times the code is scanned; a plurality of thresholds comprising a scan threshold and an associated time measurement for the plurality of scan thresholds; setting the plurality of scan thresholds; identifying a second work piece; and setting each of the plurality of scan thresholds based on the work piece data (see claim 1).
The instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of US patent 11,928,748 because both encompass receiving a creative work datum representing a workpiece in machine format; generating a smart contract as a function of the creative work datum; identifying an identifier associated with the workpiece; generating a creative work token; generating the smart contract as a function of the creative work token; tracking the number of times the machine readable code is scanned; reclassifying the creative work class including a scan number threshold associated with a time measurement; generating a machine readable code as a function of the work token; and storing the machine readable code in an immutable sequential listing (see claim 1 on the instant application and claim 1 of US patent 11,928,748).
Response to Arguments
101 arguments
Examiner has removed the 101 rejection based on the arguments of record in the Amendment filed on October 14, 2025 (see pages 12-16).
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Cooner (US 2020/0027096) discloses system, business, and technical methods, and article of manufacture for utilizing internet of things technology in energy management systems designed to automate the process of generating and/or monetizing carbon credits.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
Prosecution Insights