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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/491,560, filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 1-25 are pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-25 are considered allowable subject matter. However, claims 1-14 have a standing rejection on them. Therefore, the applicant must either cancel the other claims or re-write them to mirror the subject matter of claims 15-25.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recite “authenticating a representative of the political campaign based in part on input received from the representative of the political campaign, receiving a selection from a user to monetize data associated with a data object for benefit of the political campaign, monetizing the data object in accordance with the selection, wherein the data associated with the data object includes data independently obtained from the political campaign and associated with the user.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims recite “marketing sales activities, business relations.” The claims receive a request and media files from a political campaign user to monetize a data object by associating the media file data with the data object and providing the data object to supporters of the campaign. The claims simply automate these practices using a computer and known blockchain and smart contract technology. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “marketing or sales activities, business relations.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims include “through a user interface”. However, this additional element is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. This additional element is being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and is not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include “generating a security token including a reference to the data object, wherein the security token is a non-fungible token minted to at least one immutable ledger and recorded in an NFT registry, and wherein the minted NFT is cryptographically co-signed by an NFT registry service and the representative of the political campaign.” However, these additional elements are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). There is no improvement to blockchain, smart contract, security token, or NFT technology, but only generically recited uses of the technology. They are generic recitations of technical elements, as a security token or minting of an NFT at the time of filing of the application is known computer technology and the examiner further takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use a security token in association with a data object or mint an NFT for similar purposes. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the independent claims include “through a user interface”. However, this additional element is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and is recited at a high level of generality. This additional element is being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and is not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements also include “generating a security token including a reference to the data object, wherein the security token is a non-fungible token minted to at least one immutable ledger and recorded in an NFT registry, and wherein the minted NFT is cryptographically co-signed by an NFT registry service and the representative of the political campaign.” However, these additional elements are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). There is no improvement to blockchain, smart contract, security token, or NFT technology, but only generically recited uses of the technology. They are generic recitations of technical elements, as a security token or minting of an NFT at the time of filing of the application is known computer technology and the examiner further takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use a security token in association with a data object or mint an NFT for similar purposes. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for receiving a request and selection from a political campaign user, compiling the data, associating a security token or minting an NFT associated with the data object, and monetizing the data object utilizing the security token. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). There is no improvement to blockchain technology, but only generically recited uses of the technology. They are generic recitations of technical elements, as a security token being a blockchain-based token at the time of filing of the application is known computer technology and the examiner further takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use a blockchain-based security token in association with a data object. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 3 is considered part of the abstract idea as what type of data is part of the data object does not change the analysis. Claim 4 is considered “storing and retrieving information in memory,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Versata Dev Grp v SAP. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 5 is considered “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing VTLI Communications. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 6-8 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of data being collected or received from the political campaign does not change the analysis. Claim 9 is considered part of the abstract idea of “marketing activities,” and the use of the data exchange is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). There is no improvement to data exchange technology, but the claims only recites a generic use of the technology. Claims 10-13 are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). There is no improvement to smart contract or NFT technology, but only generically recited uses of the technology. They are generic recitations of technical elements, as minting of an NFT to at least one immutable ledger such as a blockchain at the time of filing of the application is known computer technology and the examiner further takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to mint an NFT to an immutable ledger. The specific data the smart contract or NFT are associated with, such as a ticket for a political event, do not change the analysis. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 is considered part of the abstract idea, as “monetizing the campaign data” is considered a “marketing or sales activity.”
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection
Both the claims of this application and the claims of the co-pending application 18/491,119 have been amended and now no longer can be considered similar enough to be rejectable under the statutes for provisional double patenting and double patenting. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101
The applicant has put forth no arguments, and the 101 rejection has been updated for claims 1-14. The amendments to claim 20 have overcome the 101 rejection and the rejection of claims 20-25 has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that claims 1-14 were still rejected under 101 because unlike independent claims 15 and 20, in which a media file is submitted through an interface, parameters for the media file are defined and a smart contract is created that then allows the sale of the file object for the sake of a purchaser benefit, in independent claim 1 there is only tokenized compiled campaign data, such as engagement data, that users submit as contributions. The authentication of the representative is not really tied in with the invention in the case of claim 1, as the representative is not uploading media files that are then associated with smart contracts for the sake of monetizing to supporters along with a campaign benefit such as a hard asset or tickets. Instead, the users are contributing engagement and/or other data to the campaign.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights