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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the amendment received on 12/05/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 14, 19 and 20 were amended.
Claims 15-18 were canceled
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 are pending.
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 were examined.
With respect to the claim amendments, Examiner notes the claim markings are missing the markings (underline) in newly introduced language of claims 13 and 14, as follows (in red):
PNG
media_image1.png
262
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claim 1 was amended to recite: “a memory… wherein the memory comprises… instructions in the form of… modules… wherein the plurality of modules comprises…”; claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “wherein the plurality of parties comprises a brand, an influencer and one or more followers”; “one or more first non-fungible tokens based on a hash value of the signed contract to append the signed contract in a blockchain network”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. Claim 1 was amended to recite “memory… configured to be executed on a network to control… communications…”; Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “thereby managing the contract between the plurality of parties” , a statement of intended use or field use. Statements of intended use or field of use do not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II. Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “issuing, by a transaction module, a receipt of a transaction to the plurality of parties upon performing a transaction associated with the one or more second non-fungible tokens by the plurality of parties” , language directed to contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04. Claim interpretation can affect the first part of the test (whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception). In an effort to provide compact prosecution, the language identified above in the independent claims was considered as an integral part of the identified abstract idea, however this effort shouldn’t be characterized as providing patentable weight to language that should be granted none. Examiner notes that the analysis of the dependent claims is performed in a similar fashion.
In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a system, claim 19 are directed to a method, and claim 20 are directed to a medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Specifically, the language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are marked in bold below (exemplary language of claim 19):
a. “generating, by a contract generation module, a contract between the plurality of parties based on one or more preferences provided by the plurality of parties and a plurality of information fetched from at least one of a contract database, an appending database, and a search engine database associated with at least one of the plurality of parties, wherein the contract comprises one or more predefined conditions, wherein the plurality of parties comprises a brand, an influencer and one or more followers”;
b. “receiving, by the contract generation module, corresponding electronic signatures from the plurality of parties to create a signed contract”;
c. “generating, by the contract generation module, one or more first non-fungible tokens based on a hash value of the signed contract and appending the signed contract in a blockchain network communicatively coupled to the contract generation module”;
d. “invoking, by a compliance module, the one or more predefined conditions based on at least one of a geographical location of the influencer, and a type of the influencer”;
e. “evaluating, by the compliance module, an advertisement revenue based on the one or more predefined conditions, and an engagement score of a social media post made by the influencer”;
f. “generating, by the compliance module, one or more second non-fungible tokens based on the advertisement revenue evaluated and appending the one or more non-fungible tokens into the blockchain network”; and
g. “issuing, by a transaction module, a receipt of a transaction to the plurality of parties upon performing a transaction associated with the one or more second non-fungible tokens by the plurality of parties, thereby managing the
contract between the plurality of parties”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite contract management, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo two-part test (see MPEP 2106.04). The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of evaluating revenue and the commercial or legal interaction of managing agreements in the form of contracts. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, with respect to using a hardware processor and a memory/non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the recited steps/functions, this additional element perform the steps or functions such as: “generating… a contract…”, “receiving… signatures…”, “generating… tokens…”, “invoking… conditions…”, “evaluating… revenue…”, “generating… token…”, “issuing… receipt…”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element(s) of non-fungible tokens and a blockchain network communicatively coupled to the contract generation module amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as a hardware processor and a memory/non-transitory computer-readable medium, perform the steps/functions of “generating… a contract…”, “receiving… signatures…”, “generating… tokens…”, “invoking… conditions…”, “evaluating… revenue…”, “generating… token…”, “issuing… receipt…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of contract management. The additional elements of non-fungible tokens and a blockchain network communicatively coupled to the contract generation module amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of contract management. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
h) wherein the blockchain network comprises a public blockchain network. i) wherein the blockchain network comprises a private blockchain network. j) wherein the blockchain network comprises a shared blockchain network. k) wherein the receipt comprises a plurality of information comprising status of the transaction, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens ordered by the influencer, status of an order, order schedule, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens appended to the blockchain network. l) wherein the one or more preferences comprises scope of work, content guidelines, exclusivity, timeline, payment terms, usage rights, performance metrics, compliance condition, termination condition, dispute resolution condition, service details.
m) wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the contract database, the contract database comprises information about a plurality of terms comprising influencer, copyrights, brand ambassador, currency, non-disclosure agreements, non-fungible tokens, minting, payouts, taxes, general data protection regulation, cookies, health inductance portability and accountability act, payment card industry data security standard.
n) wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the appending database, the appending database comprises information regarding one or more application programming interfaces.
o) wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the search engine database, the search engine database comprises a plurality of hashtags aggregated from one or more social media platforms associated with the influencer through an aggregator.
p) wherein the type of the influencer comprises macro influencer, micro influencer, nano influencer, celebrity influencer, industry influencer, lifestyle influencer, fashion influencer, fitness influencer, travel influencer, parenting influencer, food influencer, gaming influencer, political influencer. q) wherein the compliance module is configured to evaluate the engagement score of the social media post based on number of likes secured by the social media post including a plurality of hash tags, number of comments secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, number of shares secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, and number of impressions secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags.
r) wherein the contract comprises a copyright contract between the brand and the influencer, a membership contract between the one or more followers and the influencer, and a royalty sharing contract between the brand, the influencer, and the one or more followers. ;
s) wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are structured query language databases. t) wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are non-structured query language databases.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claim 1 above (i.e. a hardware processor and a memory), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further recites item h) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a network comprises/is. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further recites item i) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a network comprises/is. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 4, the claim further recites item j) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a network comprises/is. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further recites item k) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a receipt comprises (i.e. information types). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further recites item l) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what preferences comprise (i.e. description of data). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 7, the claim further recites item m) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what database comprises (i.e. information types). Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 8, the claim further recites item n) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what database comprises (i.e. information types). Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 9, the claim further recites item o) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what database comprises (i.e. information types). Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 10, the claim further recites item p) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what an influencer comprises (i.e. description of roles/types). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites item q) above, which represent the additional elements/functions of evaluating a score. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner notes evaluating a score based on collected data amounts to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is part of the mental process identified in the rejection of independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, the claim further recites item r) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what contract comprises (i.e. contract types). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 13, the claim further recites item s) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the databases comprise (i.e. information types). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 14, the claim further recites item t) above, which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the databases comprise (i.e. information types). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Even if weight should be given to such recitations, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of contract management identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 19 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language of dependent claims 2-14 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claim 1, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 are indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether Applicants are claiming the subcombination of a “a system comprising a processor and a memory” or the combination of a “a system comprising a processor and a memory” and “blockchain network”, recited as “communicatively coupled to the contract generation module and the hardware processor”, but not recited as an integral part of the claimed “system”. If it is Applicants’ intent to claim only the subcombination, the body of the claims must be amended to remove any positive recitation of the combination. If it is Applicants’ intent to claim the combination, the preamble of the claim must be amended to be consistent with the language in the body of the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner adopts the scope set by the preamble of the claims. Dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected since they depend on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka et al. (US 2022/0358578 A1) in view of Hain et al. (US 2021/0281410 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 19 and 20, Sliwka et al. teach a system to manage a contract between a plurality of parties comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program (see ecosystem tokenize platform, paragraphs [0006] and [0073], CPU/memory, paragraphs [0372], [0378] and [0380]. See paragraphs [0375] and [0376] for bidirectional communications); and a method to manage a contract between a plurality of parties (Smart contract-managed decentralized lending processes using collateral tokens) comprising:
generating, by a contract generation module, a contract between the plurality of parties based on one or more preferences provided by the plurality of parties and a plurality of information fetched from at least one of a contract database, an appending database, and a search engine database associated with at least one of the plurality of parties (see smart contract, paragraphs [0059], paragraph [0061]: “In embodiments, a smart contract/program may have multiple steps that are executed or completed by different parties to the contract. For example, a contract/program may be invoked by a first party to make an offer to a second party or a group of potential contracting parties by instantiating a copy of a certain contract. The second party (or one of the group) may respond by “signing” that instance of the contract. The process of “signing” the contract may comprise invoking a programmatic method defined as part of the contract. Some contracts may provide for multiple parties, such as buyer, seller, lender, borrower, escrow agent, authenticator, appraiser, and/or the like, all of whom may independently interact with a particular instance of a smart contract to sign it, or to take other actions associated with a specific type of smart contract.”; paragraph [0234]: “It is noted that in addition distributed ledgers 2016, event records 2052, ownership data 2054, and supporting data 2056 and other suitable data that supports the decentralized loan processes may be stored in non-distributed datastores, filesystems, databases, and the like. For example, in embodiments, the tokenization platform 100 may maintain data stores that store event records 2052, ownership data 2054, and supporting data 2056 and other suitable data that supports the decentralized loan processes.”),
wherein the contract comprises one or more predefined conditions, wherein the plurality of parties comprises a brand, an influencer and one or more followers (see paragraph [0080]: “In embodiments, each virtual representation of an item may include or be associated with a smart contract that, for example, provides a set of verifiable conditions that must be satisfied in order to self-execute a transaction (e.g., transfer of ownership or expiration) relating to an item represented by the virtual representation... In embodiments, a smart contract corresponding to a virtual representation may define the conditions that must be verified to generate new tokens, conditions that must be verified in order to transfer ownership of tokens, conditions that must be verified to redeem a token, and/or conditions that must be met to destroy a token. A smart contract may also contain code that defines actions to be taken when certain conditions are met. When implicated, the smart contract may determine whether the conditions defined therein are satisfied, and if so, to self-execute the actions corresponding to the conditions...”; paragraph [0197]: “...In embodiments, the user acquisition system 810 may provide different incentives to different users. In some embodiments, the incentive may be determined based on the potential reach of each respective user. For example, users that have significant reach (e.g., social media influencers, celebrities, etc.) may be given greater incentive than users with relatively little reach. In some embodiments, the incentive may be determined based on the interests of each respective user. For example, a first user that is interested in golf may be incentivized with golf-related items or gift certificates, while a second user that is interested in art may be incentivized with art-related items or gift certificates. In some embodiments, the user acquisition system 810 codifies the incentive for each user in a respective instance of a smart contract. In some of these embodiments, the smart contract instance governs the incentives/rewards of a user is associated with the referral code of the user and/or the public address of the user. When the referral code of the user is successfully used to enlist a new account, the smart contract may facilitate the transfer of a token representing the reward to an account of the referring user.”);
generating, by the contract generation module, one or more first non-fungible tokens (see paragraph [0121]: “In embodiments, the token is a wrapper that wraps an instance of a virtual representation. In some of these embodiments, the token generation system 302 may generate a token identifier that identifies the token. In scenarios where the tokens are non-fungible tokens, the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token corresponding to the virtual representation. The token generation system 302 may generate the token identifier using any suitable technique. For example, the token generation system 302 may implement random number genesis, case genesis, simple genesis, and/or token bridge genesis to generate a value that identifies the token. In embodiments, the token generation system 302 may digitally sign the value using a private key/public key pair. The token generation system 302 may utilize a private key/public key pair associated with the platform 100 or the merchant to digitally sign the value that identifies the token. The token generation system 302 may implement any suitable digital signature algorithm to digitally sign the value that identifies the token, such as the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA), developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In embodiments, the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier. For each token, the token generation system 302 may generate a token wrapper that includes the token identifier and the virtual representation of the item. In embodiments, the token generation system 302 may embed or otherwise encode the public key used to digitally sign the token in the token. Alternatively, the token generation system 302 may store the public key apart from the token, such that the public key is communicated to an account of the token owner each time the token is transferred to a new owner. Upon generating a non-fungible token, the token generation system 302 may output the non-fungible token to the ledger update system 304. The wrapper may wrap a plurality of tokens, including fungible tokens and non-fungible tokens.”);
invoking, by a compliance module, the one or more predefined conditions based on at least one of a geographical location of the influencer, and a type of the influencer (see paragraph [0104]: “In embodiments, the platform 100 can include a logistics system (not shown) that enables the physical delivery of an item, such as a good or food. The logistics system may be configured to manage the logistics from the source location of the item (e.g., a warehouse or restaurant) to the redeemer of the token (e.g., the house or current location of the redeemer). In embodiments, the logistics system may include a geolocation system (not shown) for determining delivery location. For example, if an owner of a token corresponding to a pizza with one topping from a pizza delivery chain redeems the token, the geolocation system may determine the recipient's current location for delivery. Geolocation information may be acquired by a smart phone, web browser (e.g., IP address), or the like. In this example, the logistics system may generate an electronic notification based on the user's geolocation (or a selected delivery location) and the user's order (e.g., the user's selected topping) and may transmit the electronic notification to a location of the pizza delivery chain that is closest to the intended delivery location.”; paragraph [0194]: “In some example embodiments, a video game maker may allow third-parties to advertise items for sale in a video game, whereby a user may purchase an item by selecting an icon (or other visual indicia) displayed in the video game that represents a token corresponding to the item. For example, an advertiser representing a pizza delivery chain may wish to offer pizza delivery to gamers in a specific location. In this example, instances of the video game may request food-related tokens from the video game integration system 808, whereby each request indicates a location of the device executing the respective instance of the video game. The video game integration system 808 may identify tokens corresponding to food items that can be delivered to a location where a respective instance of the video game is being executed. For example, the video game integration system 808 may identify tokens having associated metadata that indicates a delivery radius that includes a location indicated in the request. In response to the request, the video game integration system 808 serves the identified token to the requesting instance of the video game. A visual indicium representing the token may then be displayed by the instance of the video game, whereby a user (i.e., video game player) may opt to transact for the token. Upon a user transacting for ownership of the token, the video game integration system 808 updates the ownership data of the token to reflect that it is owned by the user. In scenarios where delivery information or other logistical information are needed, the instance of the video game and/or the user can provide those details at the time of transaction or the user can provide the required information to complete the transaction. For example, if the user elects to buy a pizza token from a pizza delivery chain, the instance of the video game and/or the user may provide the address to where the pizza will be delivered. The user, via the instance of the video game, may also provide details such as toppings for the pizza.”; see also triggers, Fig 20, paragraph [0229]);
evaluating, by the compliance module, an advertisement revenue based on the one or more predefined conditions… (see Fig. 5, advertising system 508, paragraphs [0157]-[0164]; analytic system, resultant analytics to interested parties, paragraphs [0095], [0096], [0194], [0195]);
generating, by the compliance module, one or more second non-fungible tokens based on the advertisement revenue evaluated (see paragraph [0103]: “The platform 100 may execute additional or alternative systems as well. For example, in embodiments, the platform 100 may include a gamification system (not shown) that gamifies aspects of the platform 100 and/or a rewards system (not shown) that rewards users for participating in certain activities. For example, the gamification system may provide an environment where users are challenged to compete for the most shared virtual items on social media platforms. In this example, the rewards system may reward users with tokens to redeem items when the users are deemed to have shared the most virtual items on the social media platforms. In another example, the rewards system may issue rewards (e.g., tokens to certain items) to a user when the user purchases a certain value or amount of virtual items.”; see also paragraphs [0195]-[0199]);
issuing, by a transaction module, a receipt of a transaction to the plurality of parties upon performing a transaction associated with the one or more second non-fungible tokens by the plurality of parties, thereby managing the contract between the plurality of parties. (see visual indicia, paragraph [0145], Fig. 11, 1106, paragraph [0210]; Fig. 20, event records, paragraph [0231], supporting data such as repayment/disbursement records, paragraph [0232]).
Although Sliwka et al. disclose that the non-fungible token is generated based on the public/private key pair that digitally signs the signed contract (see paragraphs [0057], [0121] and [0133]), Sliwka et al. do not explicitly disclose a system, method and medium comprising: the one or more first non-fungible tokens based on a hash value of the signed contract and appending the signed contract in a blockchain network communicatively coupled to the contract generation module; evaluating… an engagement score of a social media post made by the influencer; and appending the one or more non-fungible tokens into the blockchain network.
However, Hain et al. disclose a system, method and medium (System and method for proof of view via blockchain) comprising:
the one or more first non-fungible tokens based on a hash value of the signed contract and appending the signed contract in a blockchain network communicatively coupled to the contract generation module (see paragraph [0051]: “The exemplary disclosed NFT may be a unique token that may be recorded in a blockchain and that may include metadata describing content, authorship, ownership, and/or any other suitable data or details of the NFT. For example, NFTs may be included in (e.g., may exist in) a dedicated blockchain (e.g., serving a purpose related to PoV of NFT). Also, for example, NFTs may be included in (e.g., may exist in) in any suitable blockchain for supporting smart contracts (e.g., Ethereum) or any other suitable type of executable that may interact with the blockchain. For example, an NFT proxy smart contract may be deployed to Ethereum blockchain. For example, an NFT proxy smart contract may represent a core entry point for interacting with (e.g., dealing with) NFTs on a blockchain. An NFT proxy smart contract may pass any suitable function calls to its subordinary smart contracts (e.g., containing actual scripts for providing functionality). Having a proxy smart contract may allow efficient (e.g., easy) security and feature upgrades for NFTs (e.g., in the future) by maintaining or keeping the original smart contract address the same while changing underlying smart contracts representing NFT logic.”;);
evaluating… an engagement score of a social media post made by the influencer (see paragraph [0077]: “The exemplary disclosed system and method may provide an efficient technique for verifying views of content such as internet content that may be viewed by internet users. For example, the exemplary disclosed system and method may provide a transparent technique for users to utilize a public ledger to verify that online content has actually been viewed. The exemplary disclosed system and method may thereby provide an effective technique for determining the value of a content provider's channel (e.g., for the purposes of compensation based on advertising or other criteria dependent on how much given content is viewed by users such as consumers). For example, the exemplary disclosed system and method may verify whether an intended targeted audience has actually viewed content of a given provider (e.g., as well as advertisements that may be co-located with the content). Further, the exemplary disclosed system and method may provide an efficient technique for providing attribution, content, and viewing of NFTs.”;).
appending the one or more non-fungible tokens into the blockchain network (see paragraph [0051]: “The exemplary disclosed NFT may be a unique token that may be recorded in a blockchain and that may include metadata describing content, authorship, ownership, and/or any other suitable data or details of the NFT. For example, NFTs may be included in (e.g., may exist in) a dedicated blockchain (e.g., serving a purpose related to PoV of NFT). Also, for example, NFTs may be included in (e.g., may exist in) in any suitable blockchain for supporting smart contracts (e.g., Ethereum) or any other suitable type of executable that may interact with the blockchain. For example, an NFT proxy smart contract may be deployed to Ethereum blockchain. For example, an NFT proxy smart contract may represent a core entry point for interacting with (e.g., dealing with) NFTs on a blockchain. An NFT proxy smart contract may pass any suitable function calls to its subordinary smart contracts (e.g., containing actual scripts for providing functionality). Having a proxy smart contract may allow efficient (e.g., easy) security and feature upgrades for NFTs (e.g., in the future) by maintaining or keeping the original smart contract address the same while changing underlying smart contracts representing NFT logic.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the smart contract as a proxy smart contract and NFT recording as disclosed by Hain et al. in the system, method and medium of Sliwka et al., the motivation being to maintaining or keeping the original smart contract address the same while changing underlying smart contracts representing NFT logic and ensuring that content such as internet content available on the internet has actually been viewed by a user such as a consumer (see Hain et al., paragraphs [0034] and [0051]).
With respect to the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “wherein the plurality of parties comprises a brand, an influencer and one or more followers”; “one or more first non-fungible tokens based on a hash value of the signed contract to append the signed contract in a blockchain network”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “thereby managing the contract between the plurality of parties” , a statement of intended use or field use. Statements of intended use or field of use do not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II. claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “issuing, by a transaction module, a receipt of a transaction to the plurality of parties upon performing a transaction associated with the one or more second non-fungible tokens by the plurality of parties” , language directed to contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the blockchain network comprises a public blockchain network (see paragraph [0117]: “In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 may be a public ledger, such that N node computing devices 160 store N respective copies of the ledger 310, where each copy includes at least a portion of the distributed ledger 310. In other embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a private ledger, where the ledger is distributed amongst nodes under control of the platform 100. In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a blockchain (e.g., an Ethereum blockchain comporting to the ETC protocol). Alternatively, the distributed ledger 310 may comport to other suitable protocols (e.g., Hashgraph, Byteball, Nano-Block Lattice, or IOTA). By storing tokens on a distributed ledger 310, the status of that token can be verified at any time by querying the ledger and trust that it is correct. By using the token approach to implementation, tokens cannot be copied and redeemed without permission.”;). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 2 recites “wherein the blockchain network comprises a public blockchain network”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the blockchain network comprises a private blockchain network (see paragraph [0117]: “In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 may be a public ledger, such that N node computing devices 160 store N respective copies of the ledger 310, where each copy includes at least a portion of the distributed ledger 310. In other embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a private ledger, where the ledger is distributed amongst nodes under control of the platform 100. In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a blockchain (e.g., an Ethereum blockchain comporting to the ETC protocol). Alternatively, the distributed ledger 310 may comport to other suitable protocols (e.g., Hashgraph, Byteball, Nano-Block Lattice, or IOTA). By storing tokens on a distributed ledger 310, the status of that token can be verified at any time by querying the ledger and trust that it is correct. By using the token approach to implementation, tokens cannot be copied and redeemed without permission.”;). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 3 recites “wherein the blockchain network comprises a private blockchain network.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the blockchain network comprises a shared blockchain network (see paragraph [0117]: “In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 may be a public ledger, such that N node computing devices 160 store N respective copies of the ledger 310, where each copy includes at least a portion of the distributed ledger 310. In other embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a private ledger, where the ledger is distributed amongst nodes under control of the platform 100. In embodiments, the distributed ledger 310 is a blockchain (e.g., an Ethereum blockchain comporting to the ETC protocol). Alternatively, the distributed ledger 310 may comport to other suitable protocols (e.g., Hashgraph, Byteball, Nano-Block Lattice, or IOTA). By storing tokens on a distributed ledger 310, the status of that token can be verified at any time by querying the ledger and trust that it is correct. By using the token approach to implementation, tokens cannot be copied and redeemed without permission.”; Examiner notes a blockchain network is shared among its peers/nodes.). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 4 recites “wherein the blockchain network comprises a shared blockchain network.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the receipt comprises a plurality of information comprising status of the transaction, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens ordered by the influencer, status of an order, order schedule, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens appended to the blockchain network (see visual indicia, paragraph [0145], Fig. 11, 1106, paragraph [0210]; Fig. 20, event records, paragraph [0231], supporting data such as repayment/disbursement records, paragraph [0232]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 5 recites “wherein the receipt comprises a plurality of information comprising status of the transaction, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens ordered by the influencer, status of an order, order schedule, quantify of the one or more non-fungible tokens appended to the blockchain network”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the one or more preferences comprises scope of work, content guidelines, exclusivity, timeline, payment terms, usage rights, performance metrics, compliance condition, termination condition, dispute resolution condition, service details (see agreement, paragraph [0215]. See also paragraphs [0176], [0178, [0236] and [0245]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 6 recites “wherein the one or more preferences comprises scope of work, content guidelines, exclusivity, timeline, payment terms, usage rights, performance metrics, compliance condition, termination condition, dispute resolution condition, service details”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the contract database, the contract database comprises information about a plurality of terms comprising influencer, copyrights, brand ambassador, currency, non- disclosure agreements, non-fungible tokens, minting, payouts, taxes, general data protection regulation, cookies, health inductance portability and accountability act, payment card industry data security standard (see paragraph [0234]: “It is noted that in addition distributed ledgers 2016, event records 2052, ownership data 2054, and supporting data 2056 and other suitable data that supports the decentralized loan processes may be stored in non-distributed datastores, filesystems, databases, and the like. For example, in embodiments, the tokenization platform 100 may maintain data stores that store event records 2052, ownership data 2054, and supporting data 2056 and other suitable data that supports the decentralized loan processes.”). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the contract database comprises information about a plurality of terms comprising influencer, copyrights, brand ambassador, currency, non-disclosure agreements, non -fungible tokens, minting,21 payouts, taxes, general data protection regulation, cookies, health inductance portability and accountability act, payment card industry data security standard”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the appending database, the appending database comprises information regarding one or more application programming interfaces (see paragraph [0076]: “In embodiments, the platform 100 may receive data from one or more external data sources 170. An external data source 170 may refer to any system or device that can provide data to the platform. In embodiments, data sources may include merchant, manufacturer, or service provider systems and/or databases that provide the platform 100 with data related to an available item. External data sources may also include user devices 190, such that the user devices 190 may provide relevant data (e.g., contacts, cookies, and the like). Examples of external data sources 170 may include e-Commerce websites, organizational websites, software applications, and contact lists (e.g., phone contacts, email contacts, messenger client contacts, and the like). The platform 100 may access an external data source 170 via a network 10 (e.g., the Internet) in any suitable manner (e.g., crawlers, user permission/API, and the like).”; see also additional data, such as event records 2052, ownership data 2054, and/or supporting data 2056, paragraphs [0231-[0235]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 8 recites “wherein the appending database comprises information regarding one or more application programming interfaces.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04.The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the type of the influencer comprises macro influencer, micro influencer, nano influencer, celebrity influencer, industry influencer, lifestyle influencer, fashion influencer, fitness influencer, travel influencer, parenting influencer, food influencer, gaming influencer, political influencer (see paragraphs [0061] and [0197]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 10 recites “wherein the type of the influencer comprises macro influencer, micro influencer, nano influencer, celebrity influencer, industry influencer, lifestyle influencer, fashion influencer, fitness influencer, travel influencer, parenting influencer, food influencer, gaming influencer, political influencer”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the contract comprises a copyright contract between the brand and the influencer, a membership contract between the one or more followers and the influencer, and a royalty sharing contract between the brand, the influencer, and the one or more followers. (see paragraphs [0197], [0235] and [0236]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 12 recites “wherein the contract comprises a copyright contract between the brand and the influencer, a membership contract between the one or more followers and the influencer, and a royalty sharing contract between the brand, the influencer, and the one or more followers”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are structured query language databases (see SQL, paragraph [0385]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 13 recites “wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are structured query language databases.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Sliwka et al. disclose a system wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are non-structured query language databases (see paragraphs [0059], [0229], [0385]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 14 recites “wherein the contract database, the appending database, and the search engine database are non-structured query language databases”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka et al. (US 2022/0358578 A1), in view of Hain et al. (US 2021/0281410 A1), in view of Green et al. (US 2016/0188713 A1).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. does not explicitly teach a system wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the search engine database, the search engine database comprises a plurality of hashtags aggregated from one or more social media platforms associated with the influencer through an aggregator.
However, Green et al. discloses a system (Systems and methods for clustering items associated with interactions) wherein when the plurality of information is fetched from the search engine database, the search engine database comprises a plurality of hashtags aggregated from one or more social media platforms associated with the influencer through an aggregator (see paragraph [0044]: “As another example, if a post (e.g., status update, comment) is published, the text of the post may result in the generation of, for example, topic tags, hashtags, and URLs. The generation module 304 can appropriately reflect the topic tags, the hashtags, and the URLs in the graph. Nodes and transitions can be created for the topic tags, the hashtags, and the URLs.”; paragraph [0045]: “The generation module 304 can generate transitions based on the different interactions and generated relationships between items. Over a threshold number of users and generated relationships over time, the transitions, when aggregated, can converge on certain ratios or transition probabilities with respect to one another. The transition probabilities can be used to cluster items and facilitate the selection of relevant information by the recommender systems 104.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the data aggregation and clustering mechanisms as disclosed by Green et al. in the system of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al., the motivation being to facilitate selection of relevant information for potential presentation to a user and improve recommender systems that present content to a user (see Green et al., paragraphs [0004] and [0025]).
Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claim 9 recites “wherein the search engine database comprises a plurality of hashtags aggregated from one or more social media platforms associated with the influencer through an aggregator.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. Examiner also notes that since the function of “fetch” is not required by the claims, the amended language newly introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. teaches all the subject matter of the system as described above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al. does not explicitly teach a system wherein the compliance module is configured to evaluate the engagement score of the social media post based on number of likes secured by the social media post including a plurality of hash tags, number of comments secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, number of shares secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, and number of impressions secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags.
However, Green et al. discloses a system (Systems and methods for clustering items associated with interactions) wherein the compliance module is configured to evaluate the engagement score of the social media post based on number of likes secured by the social media post including a plurality of hash tags, number of comments secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, number of shares secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags, and number of impressions secured by the social media post including the plurality of hash tags (see paragraph [0026]: “FIG. 1 illustrates an example system 100 including an example clustering module 102 configured to facilitate the determination of additional content by recommender systems 104 to present to a user of a social networking system, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The recommender systems 104, including user-to-item recommender systems and item-to-item recommender systems, can include one or more types of techniques for providing relevant information to the user in a social networking system. In some instances, the example system 100 can also include at least one data store 116.”; paragraph [0029]: “The tailer module 108 can access data relating to interaction (engagement) with the social networking system or other websites for which the social networking system acts as a platform. The data can be provided by a system that interfaces with front end servers to track in real time (or near real time) all interactions with items (entities). Items can include, for example, other users, groups, pages, hashtags, topics, links, photos, search terms, etc. Interactions can include, for example, production, clicking, viewing, navigating, etc. As some examples, interactions can relate to page visits, page likes, profile follows, URL shares, hashtag authoring, topic authoring, etc. The data can be log entries in the form of messages. In particular, the tailer module 108 can receive desired categories of the messages and extract information about interactions. The information can include, for example, identity of the user performing the interaction (User-Id), identity of an item with which user is interacting (Item-Id), the type of the item, the time of the interaction, and the location of the interaction. This information can be encoded in a message for consumption by the joiner module 110. The tailer module 108 can queue messages for consumption by the joiner module 110 in a first-in-first-out manner.”; paragraph [0031]: “The graph module 112 can manage a multi-level graph reflecting user interaction with items and track transitions between the same type of items (homogeneous) and between different types of items (heterogeneous). The graph can be implemented as a time and space efficient indexed table designed to support concurrent writes. The graph module 112 can track transitions by a variety of metadata, such as by type of item and by location. The graph module 112 can perform a rebalancing technique relating to transition (edge) counts to optimize memory efficiency and to address rapid decay in certain circumstances. The graph module 112 can generate similarity scores based on transitions to facilitate the determination of clusters of items. The graph module 112 can generate clusters of the items according to the similarity scores and provide the clusters to the recommender systems 104. The graph module 302 is discussed in more detail herein.”; paragraph [0044]: “As another example, if a post (e.g., status update, comment) is published, the text of the post may result in the generation of, for example, topic tags, hashtags, and URLs. The generation module 304 can appropriately reflect the topic tags, the hashtags, and the URLs in the graph. Nodes and transitions can be created for the topic tags, the hashtags, and the URLs.”; ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the data aggregation and clustering mechanisms as disclosed by Green et al. in the system of Sliwka et al. and Hain et al., the motivation being to facilitate selection of relevant information for potential presentation to a user and improve recommender systems that present content to a user (see Green et al., paragraphs [0004] and [0025]).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 9, filed on 12/05/2025), with respect to the objections of claims 1, 5, 7, 19 and 20 have been fully considered, and the objections were withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 9-17, filed on 12/05/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but are not persuasive. With respect to BRI of the claims, Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that this initial premise misconstrues both the content of the disclosure and the essential technical functions recited in the claims.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106 II establishes: "It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions. See MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2019 USPQ2d 305789 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("Determining patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter"), citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951, 88 USPQ2d 1385, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc ), aff'd by Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) ("claim construction … is an important first step in a § 101 analysis"). Evaluating eligibility based on the BRI also ensures that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, 1985 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978) and Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). See MPEP § 2111 for more information about determining the BRI." It appears Applicant places undue weight to certain claim language. It also appears Applicant attempts to incorporate subject matter from the specification into the claims, which is improper.
Specifically, with respect to claim 1, the claim is directed to a system comprising a processor and memory. The claim further describes the memory “comprising a set of instructions in the form of a plurality of modules…” It appears Applicant places undue weight in the recited “modules” and the descriptions of what the “modules” are “configured to perform”. Examiner is in the position that this language does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the “modules” are clearly directed by the claim language to software (i.e. instructions). Examiner also notes that while these modules are “configured to be executed”, the claims were amended to not require these instructions to be executed by the processor. Therefore, the plain meaning of the claim recites a hardware processor, a memory and instructions stored therein. The “modules” are clearly directed to software and the claim does not introduce, for example, functions that are required to be performed by the processor, but rather describe a set of instructions comprised by modules (i.e. instructions). Therefore, Examiner is in the position that the established BRI is proper with respect to claim 1. Examiner also notes that, due to this deficiency, exemplary method claim 19 was adopted for the analysis.
With respect to Step 2A, prong one, Applicant asserts “This characterizes the claim at far too high a level of abstraction and ignores the technical architecture imposed by the claim and taught in the specification”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106 II A 1. establishes "Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.". The language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are clearly identified in the rejection, in addition to the particular groupings of abstract idea recited by the claims according to 2106.04(a). It appears Applicant relies in subject matter from the specification to assert claim eligibility. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's approach. Therefore, under step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Applicant asserts “the specification clearly describes…"; The combination of modules, databases, hash-based token generation, and blockchain appending yields a practical application that imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea. This directly satisfies Prong Two”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) establishes: "...after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. ". Examiner once again reminds Applicant the eligibility analysis is claim based. Arguments directed to subject matter recited in the specifications are unpersuasive as this subject matter is not part of the claims. . Therefore, the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant asserts “Examiner asserts that the additional elements do not amount to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea and that the features are routine, conventional, or generic. However, this conclusion is unsupported. The specification nowhere describes the operations of generating first and second non-fungible tokens based on hash values of signed contracts and evaluated revenues, respectively, as routine or conventional. “. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 I establishes "Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’" Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218 n.3, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ 1, 8-9 (1981)). . Examiner disagrees with Applicant's interpretation that the determination of whether the additional elements amount to "significantly more" should be drawn from the specification. It appears Applicant is in the position that absent a statement in the specification, every claimed element should be treated as "significantly more". Examiner respectfully disagrees with this approach. The considerations relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept are thoroughly discussed in the MPEP. The MPEP further establishes: "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s))." Examiner further notes this is a claim based assessment. . Therefore, the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim) (Step 2B: NO) and thus are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis . The new and amended claims do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea itself, therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 as further detailed above.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 17-20, filed on 12/05/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part. in claim 1, Applicant asserts “The amended claim removes the ambiguity identified by the Examiner”. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive; therefore the rejection was withdrawn. language "to append the one or more non-fungible tokens into the blockchain network" in claims 1, 19 and 20, Applicant asserts “The amended claims now clearly recite that the system generates one or more second non-fungible tokens based on the evaluated advertisement revenue, and appends the one or more second non-fungible tokens to the blockchain network.”. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive; therefore the rejection was withdrawn.
With respect to claims 1-4, Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that the indefiniteness concern for claims 2-4 is resolved by amendment.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proposed amendments do not cure the deficiencies identified in the claims. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine whether the blockchain network is part of the claimed system or not. For purposes of Examination, the scope set by the preamble of the claims was adopted.
With respect to claims 7-9, Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 7 has been amended to no longer positively recite a "contract database" as a required component of the claimed system. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 8 has been amended to no longer positively recite an "appending database" as a required component of the claimed system. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 9 has been amended to no longer positively recite an "search engine database" as a required component of the claimed system. ”. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive; therefore the rejection was withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that the newly amended language now introduces a contingent limitation (i.e. when… information is fetched from… database… the… database… comprises…).
With respect to the rejections of claims 15-18, Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive, therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 21-32, filed on 12/05/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness is deficient for multiple independent technical reasons which are elaborated below… known technologies… The invention as claimed in claim 1 is a concrete technical system… The claimed invention solves the deficiencies identified in the background... consider an example deployment... The advantages of the claimed invention include the following... The cited prior art, Sliwka et al. discloses...”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner appreciates Applicant's interpretation of the disclosure, Examiner reminds Applicant that “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." See MPEP 2111.01 Examiner contends that the background provided by Applicant does not specifically address claim elements, therefore, while made of record, those arguments do not address the rejections at issue in view of the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant asserts “However, Sliwka does not disclose the critical structural and procedural elements that distinguish claim 1. Crucially, Sliwka's token generation passages teach generating token identifiers and wrapping virtual representations, and mention digital signature approaches using public/private keys, but do not disclose generating first NFTs specifically from a cryptographic hash of the signed contract document for the purpose of appending that signed contract (by its hash) into a blockchain network as an auditable anchor... The Examiner cites Sliwka's general token-signing and identifier generation passages... as if they are equivalent... The Examiner's citation to Sliwka's logistics/geolocation examples and to general rewards/gamification passages... describes generically that a platform may provide gamification and rewards... it does not set forth the concrete analytics pipeline claimed namely an auditable compliance module that evaluates a delineated engagement metric set and triggers minting of second NFTs and issuance of transaction receipts with the claimed receipt content. For these reasons Sliwka by itself does not anticipate and does not render obvious the claimed contract-hash anchoring and engagement-driven on-chain reward issuance.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not appear to clearly identify the “critical structural and procedural elements”, “concrete analytics pipeline”, Examiner is in the position that the critical elements in the BRI of claim 1 are a processor and a memory. Examiner is not persuaded that the references at issue do not anticipate these elements. Examiner notes that, for compact prosecution, the rejections provide Applicant with guidance towards what the prior art teaches. However, this effort shouldn't be understood as providing patentable weight to language that should be granted none. Examiner contends the BRI of claim 1 does not encompass the narrow interpretation presented by Applicant in the arguments. Lastly Applicant asserts that “Sliwka by itself does not anticipate and does not render obvious the claimed contract-hash anchoring and engagement-driven on-chain reward issuance”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with such a narrow interpretation. The BRI of claim 1 does not encompass the contract-hash anchoring or engagement-driven on-chain reward issuance. For instance, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Still with respect to claim 1, Examiner is in the position that the cited references render the claimed subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Examiner is in the position that the prior art does render the BRI of the claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant asserts “The Examiner then cites Hain et al. asserting that Hain teaches…. Nevertheless, Hain does not remedy the deficiencies identified above for several independent technical reasons. First, Hain's PoV focus is on verifying that content has been viewed and on anchoring view data via blockchain hashing of database chunks; it is not directed to the contractual context claimed and does not disclose the claimed legal- document-centric flow where the signed contract itself is hashed and the resulting hash is used to generate the primary NFT that specifically represents the contract instance... Second, Hain's proxy smart contract teaching (e.g., suggestion that an NFT proxy smart contract may pass function calls to subordinate smart contracts) is an architectural pattern; it does not provide the specific disclosure or enabling instructions to implement the particular compliance-trigger and contract-hash-anchoring logic claimed here... The Examiner's reliance on the proxy concept as a general “motivation to combine” ignores the fact that combining such distinct teachings would require non-trivial engineering choices and inventive design to ensure that cryptographic anchoring, contract execution semantics, and engagement analytics interoperate without compromising on auditability, witnessability, or legal enforceability.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, it appears Applicant places undue weight to certain language in the claims. Secondly, it appears Applicants require a much narrower standard for combining references. It appears Applicants contend the references are directed to non-analogous art. However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hain et al. is directed to a system and method for proof of view via blockchain. Sliwka et al is directed to smart contract-managed decentralized lending processes using collateral tokens. Examiner is in the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably combine the teachings of the references as they are directed to the same field of endeavor.
Applicant further asserts “The Examiner also contends that the distinction between Sliwka's platform-level token signing and the claimed contract-hash-derived NFT is merely non-functional descriptive material and therefore should not be given patentable weight; the Examiner's treatment conflates descriptive field or use statements with the structural, machine-implemented claim limitations here... The specification and claims require concrete operations performed by modules...” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not specify which “structural, machine-implemented claim limitations” Applicant considers to be relevant. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “structural, machine-implemented claim limitations”) is not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts “The Examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious “to incorporate the smart contract as a proxy smart contract as disclosed by Hain in the system, method and medium of Sliwka” overlooks several dispositive technical and pragmatic points”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “ several dispositive technical and pragmatic points” were overlooked, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Applicant asserts “the Green teachings on clustering and hashtag aggregation do not supply, by themselves or in combination with Sliwka and Hain, the particular claimed sequence and binding: (a) a contract generation module that produces an executed contract between specified parties and a first NFT derived from a hash of that signed contract, (b) a compliance module that invokes contract conditions based on geolocation and influencer type, (c) an engagement evaluation algorithm that is part of the compliance module and which maps the exact listed social metrics (number of likes, comments, shares and impressions for posts containing the specified hashtags) into a triggering engagement score as claimed, and (d) the minting of second NFTs that are appended to the blockchain network as a function of evaluated advertisement revenue and issuance of a structured receipt to all parties. Green gives detail on how to aggregate hashtags and compute clusters used by recommender systems, but does not teach how or why an implementer would bind such cluster/hashtag output to a signed contract's hash and then automatically mint on-chain reward NFTs that are legally tied to that contract instance”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds Applicant that claim 9 was amended to recite stored data (i.e. what a database comprises) contingent on information being “fetched”. Examiner notes the database is not claimed as an integral part of the “system”, but rather disclosed as a source of information in claim 1. With respect to claim 11, the claims recite the intended use of instructions (i.e. a “module”. Therefore, it appears Applicant places undue weight to language directed to elements extraneous to the claimed “system” (i.e. “database”) and the description of “modules” (i.e. “instructions”). Examiner is in the position that these elements are not encompassed by the Broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Every effort was made to clearly identify language directed to non-functional descriptive material, intended use, not positively recited method steps during prosecution, however it also appears Applicant strongly disagrees with the plain meaning of the BRI of the claims thoroughly identified by Examiner. This disagreement appears to be the source of most, if not all of Applicants' disagreements.
Applicant asserts “The Examiner's motivation language is conclusory and rests on hindsight i.e., seeing the problem solved by Applicant and then asserting that the references could be stitched together, which is not a proper basis for a§ 103 rejection.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). While Examiner relied in the prior art of record, subject matter from the specification was not imported into the claim analysis.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner's specific point that certain dependent claim limitations are “non- functional descriptive material” under MPEP 2111.05 also merits correction. Many dependent claim elements recite concrete data structures and processing steps e.g., the search engine database comprising aggregated hashtags from social media platforms via an aggregator, or the compliance module being configured to compute engagement scores from likes, comments, shares and impressions associated with those hashtags... To summarize, the combination the Examiner asserts is conclusory and fails to shoulder the Examiner's burden of showing a rational underpinning for each claimed limitation... The claimed invention is a synergistic integration that (i) binds on-chain artifacts to the exact signed contract via cryptographic hashing as a defining token basis, (ii) ingests and processes social engagement in a contract-aware compliance pipeline, and (iii) issues on-chain reward NFTs and structured receipts that close the loop between legal contract and tokenized economic settlement, all of which are not reasonably suggested by the cited references in combination without impermissible hindsight”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant argues “concrete data structures”, Applicant broadly argues certain claim elements which are not considered structural elements. For instance, “instructions” stored in memory cannot represent a structural element. Consequently, as the points argued are not recited in the claims themselves, a solid argument in their contemplation cannot be established. Subsequent amendments to the claim language that would include the positions presented by the Applicant's arguments would provoke the Examiner to readdress the claims individually and as a whole, in light of the newly drafted limitations as well as the specification . Therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 103 as further detailed above.
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 EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698