Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: providing a reward to an owner of a token corresponding to a share of real property ; an instruction to transmit a first subtoken and a second subtoken corresponding to the token to a first account; an instruction to provide a first reward for the second subtoken to the first account; an instruction to transmit the second subtoken to a second account in response to receiving first rental data for the token between the first account and the second account; and an instruction to provide the first reward to the second account when the second subtoken has been transmitted to the second account; the first reward is provided to an account that owned the second subtoken based on a location of a residence associated with the account. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “technique for providing a reward to a token owner”, “provide a technique for providing a reward for rental of each of a plurality of subtokens according to different reward systems.”, “to provide a basic reward for the first subtoken corresponding to the second subtoken to the first account when the second subtoken has been transmitted to the second account.”, “may provide an occupation reward to the first account that occupies the token. In the present disclosure, "occupation of a token," unlike owning a token, may be a token control form in which a token owner and a token occupier may be different. For example, both an owner and an occupier of the token may be the first account, or the owner of the token may be the first account and the occupier of the token may be the second account. For example, the first account owning the second subtoken corresponding to the token may be an account that occupies the token. For example, the first account owning the first subtoken corresponding to the token may be an account that owns the token. The occupation reward may be a reward provided to an account that occupies the token. For example, the occupation reward may be a reward provided to an account that owns the second subtoken.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a processor connected to a blockchain network, a server associated with the blockchain network, a user terminal associated with the blockchain network, performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, and tokens that are registered and stored with/on the blockchain network (‘wherein the token comprises a first data structure and a second data structure stored’, ‘wherein information about the first subtoken is recorded in the first data structure and information about the second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure’ ), and executing a smart contract. The processor/server/terminal represent generic computing elements; performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, registering and storing tokens on a blockchain, and executing a smart contract do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain network , registering and storing tokens on a blockchain, and executing a smart contract do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 18 is directed to an apparatus ,for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; claim 18 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 18 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Independent claim 19 is directed towards a terminal , thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 19 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: transmit a number of issued tokens determined based on a user input to an address of a smart contract; receive a wallet address of a first account and a purchasing token quantity from the first account that is a token purchaser; and transmit the wallet address of the first account and the purchasing token quantity to the address of the smart contract; receive a user input to confirm a reward and output a first reward provided to the first account ; the first reward is provided to an account that owned a second subtoken based on a location of a residence associated with the account; tokens correspond to a share of real property. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of a processor, first terminal, a server associated with the blockchain network, a user terminal associated with the blockchain network, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements of a blockchain network/performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment/tokens are registered with the blockchain network and storing tokens on the blockchain network (‘the second subtoken is associated with a token registered with the blockchain network’, ‘the token comprises a first data structure and a second data structure stored’, ‘information about the second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure’) , and
executing a smart contract do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements of a blockchain network/performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment/tokens are registered with the blockchain network and storing tokens on the blockchain network , and executing a smart contract do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 19 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 20 is directed towards a terminal , thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 20 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: receive a user input for a purchasing token quantity and transmit the purchasing token quantity and a wallet address of a first account; receive a user input to confirm a contribution degree and receive real property value contribution degree data of the first account; receive a user input to modify a contribution degree and transmit a request to modify the real property value contribution degree data of the first account; receive a user input to confirm a reward and request data related to a basic reward and an additional reward scheduled to be provided to the first account; receive a user input to confirm a reward and output a first reward provided to the first account; and receive a user input to confirm a rental and output rental data for the token; tokens corresponded to a share of real property; the first reward is provided to an account that owned a second subtoken based on a location of a residence associated with the account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 includes the additional elements of a processor , a screen, a server associated with the blockchain network, a user terminal associated with the blockchain network, which represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain network
and storing tokens on a blockchain network (‘the token comprises a first data structure and a second data structure stored ‘, ‘wherein information about a second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain network and storing tokens on a blockchain network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 20 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 21 is directed towards a terminal , thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 21 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: transmit a wallet address of a second account to a first account that owns a token; receive a user input to confirm a contribution degree and request real property value contribution degree data of the second account; and receive a user input to confirm a reward and output a first reward provided to the second account; a token corresponded to a share of real property ; the first reward is provided to an account that owned a second subtoken based on a location of a residence associated with the account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional elements of a processor / first terminal/ a screen/ a server associated with the blockchain network, a user terminal associated with the blockchain network, which represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, a token is registered with the blockchain network, and storing tokens on a blockchain (‘the token comprises a first data structure and a second data structure stored ‘, ‘information about a second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, a token is registered with the blockchain network, and storing tokens on a blockchain does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 21 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 22 is directed towards a method , thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 22 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include: providing a reward to a first account that owns the token, based on real property value contribution degree data of the first account; providing an occupation reward to the first account that occupies the token; transmitting the token to the second account in response to receiving rental data for the token between the first account and the second account; providing a reward to the first account, based on real property value contribution degree data of the second account that receives the token; and providing the occupation reward to the second account that occupies the token; the occupation reward is provided to an account that owned a second subtoken corresponded to the token based on a location of a residence associated with the account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 22 includes the additional elements of a processor / server associated with the blockchain network / a user terminal associated with the blockchain network, which represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, a token registered with a blockchain network, and storing tokens on a blockchain network (‘the token comprises a first data structure and a second data structure stored ‘, ‘information about the second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a blockchain environment, a token registered with a blockchain network, and storing tokens on a blockchain network does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 22 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-17, 23 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional element of storing tokens (‘the token is partitioned into a first partition and a second partition’, ‘wherein the first data structure comprises the first partition, and the second data structure comprises the second partition’), which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art:
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-22. The most relevant prior art identified, Lyubynskyy (2020073094), teaches executing a smart contract for providing a reward to a token owner corresponding to a share of real property / transmit a first subtoken and a second subtoken corresponding to the token to a first account / provide a first reward for the second subtoken to the first account / transmit the second subtoken to a second account in response to receiving first rental data for the token between the first account and the second account / provide the first reward to the second account when the second subtoken has been transmitted to the second account. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Without any admissions, without prejudice or disclaimer, and solely in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant has amended the independent claims to include further details about how the claims relate to an improvement in a technological field. In particular, Applicant
has amended claim 1 to specify that "the token comprises a first data structure and a second data
structure stored in at least one from among the blockchain network, a server associated with the
blockchain network, and a user terminal associated with the blockchain network", and that
"information about the first subtoken is recorded in the first data structure and information about
the second subtoken is recorded in the second data structure". These amendments are supported
throughout the original disclosure, for example in at least paragraphs [0059]-[0060] of the
present Specification. Accordingly, Applicant submits that, even assuming that a judicial exception is present, claim 1 integrates any such exception into a practical application that represents an improvement to a particular technical field. Therefore, elements such as the communication interface, the blockchain network, the nodes of the blockchain network, and the display attributes should not be evaluated using the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration. With respect to the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the MPEP further states: A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d) (emphasis added) Referring to paragraphs [0059]-[0061] of the present Specification, it is described that information about at least one subtoken corresponding to one token may be recorded in a smart contract and stored in a blockchain, or in a memory of a user terminal or a server. Information about the subtoken may be stored in various data structure formats, for example an ERC1400 partition from among a plurality of partitions corresponding to the token. By configuring a
plurality of partitions in one token, it may be possible to distinguish categories of users or to
separate kinds or types of assets. For example, partition A corresponding to a token owner
category and partition B corresponding to a token rentee category may be configured in one
token, which may simplify a token management operation performed by one or more devices
included in the blockchain network. Therefore, Applicant submits that the Specification discloses a technical improvement, in that the claimed token is divided or partitioned into data structures that provide improved performance and increased efficiency in a particular technical field, for example managing an electronic ledger implemented using a blockchain network. In addition, Applicant submits that this improvement is properly reflected in claim 1, for example in the portions of our proposed
claim 1 relating to the first data structure and the second data structure. As a result, Applicant submits that, even assuming arguendo that any judicial exception is present in the claims, our proposed claim 1 relates to an improvement to a technical field, and is therefore patent eligible at least at Step 2A Prong Two (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). Applicant submits that the remaining claims are patent eligible for at least similar reasons as those discussed above with reference to claim 1. Therefore, Applicant submits that the claims satisfy the requirements of §101, and requests that these rejections be withdrawn.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination , integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application , nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Providing rewards based on rules/criteria represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. As noted above, providing rewards within a blockchain environment and using smart contracts does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “technique for providing a reward to a token owner”, “provide a technique for providing a reward for rental of each of a plurality of subtokens according to different reward systems.”, “to provide a basic reward for the first subtoken corresponding to the second subtoken to the first account when the second subtoken has been transmitted to the second account.”, “may provide an occupation reward to the first account that occupies the token. In the present disclosure, "occupation of a token," unlike owning a token, may be a token control form in which a token owner and a token occupier may be different. For example, both an owner and an occupier of the token may be the first account, or the owner of the token may be the first account and the occupier of the token may be the second account. For example, the first account owning the second subtoken corresponding to the token may be an account that occupies the token. For example, the first account owning the first subtoken corresponding to the token may be an account that owns the token. The occupation reward may be a reward provided to an account that occupies the token. For example, the occupation reward may be a reward provided to an account that owns the second subtoken.” The pending claims, when implemented , do not improve the functioning of the computing device itself, or other technology/technical field; they do not improve the technical field of blockchain networks. As noted above, the additional elements of registering tokens within a blockchain/storing tokens onto a blockchain/partitioning a token into data structures that are stored onto the blockchain network do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. paras noted by the Applicant above that the pending claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights