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 FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #18/491,560, filed on 10/20/2023. This application claims priority to Provisional Application #63/380,513, filed on 10/21/2022.
Claims 1-25 are pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are considered allowable subject matter. However, claims 1-14 and 20-25 have multiple rejections on them. Therefore, the applicant must either cancel the other claims or re-write them to mirror the subject matter of claims 15-19.
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).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-9 of co-pending Application No. 18/491,119, filed on 10/20/2023. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The differences between the independent claims of the claim sets are found only in the invention being applied to a political campaign versus a religious organization. But both still take the same claim steps to monetize a data object for the benefit of the campaign or organization. The co-pending claims as amended include a limitation of trading the security token on an exchange, but this is also found in the dependent claims of the current application and is considered an obvious variant with readily available references.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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 and 20-25 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. Claims 1 and 20 claim a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 claims a platform comprising a plurality of computer systems connected via a network. Figures 9 and 11 and the accompanying descriptions in the specification describe the computer systems as comprising at least a processor and a memory and the platform as a server. Therefore, the computer systems are interpreted as apparatuses. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 is also considered eligible subject matter and is not further discussed below.
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 “receiving a selection from a user to monetize data associated with a data object for benefit of a 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.” Independent claim 20 recites “authenticating a representative of the political campaign based in part on input received from the representative of the political campaign, receiving a media file, receiving parameters for use in programmatically defining smart contracts wherein the parameters include at least one political campaign supporter benefit, and stored data identifies a data object including the media file and corresponds with programmatically defined smart contracts based on the parameters.” 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 generated by a computing device” (claim 20). 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,” and “utilizing the security token,” (claim 1), and “minting an NFT, wherein the NFT identifies a data object including the media file and corresponds with programmatically defined smart contracts based on the parameters” (claim 20). 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 generated by a computing device” (claim 20). 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,” and “utilizing the security token,” (claim 1), and “minting an NFT, wherein the NFT identifies a data object including the media file and corresponds with programmatically defined smart contracts based on the parameters” (claim 20). 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 via political campaign supporter benefits. 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. Claims 14 and 21 are considered part of the abstract idea, as “monetizing the campaign data” and “selling the NFT to a campaign supporter” are considered a “marketing or sales activity.” Claims 23-24 are considered conventional computer functioning, and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to use a 2-D barcode to encode such as ticket data or to use a coupon code to redeem at an online store. Claim 25 is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and non-functional descriptive language, as the item to which the coupon code corresponds, such as a hat or shirt, is completely removed from the functionality of the claim steps. Claim 22 mirrors claims already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-14 and 20-25 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.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0334492 A1 in view of Giang, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0033434 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Tai teaches:
A method of fundraising for a political campaign, comprising:
receiving a selection from a user to monetize data associated with a data object for benefit of a campaign (see [0006], [0066], [0106], [0302], and [0328] in which a seller interface allows sellers to upload, create, and request data objects to be used to create an NFT and monetized for the benefit of a sales campaign)
compiling the data associated with the data object (see [0066], [0070], [0078]-[0079])
generating a security token including a reference to the data object (see [0067] –[0068] in which an NFT is minted to one or more blockchains, the NFT associated with the data object; see also [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0064], and [0182]-[0185] in which the NFT’s are associated with a smart contract and used for event ticket sales for a campaign)
monetizing the data object utilizing the security token in accordance with the selection (see [0071]-[0072] in which the NFT is monetized by being purchased by a buyer)
wherein the data associated with the data object includes data independently obtained from the campaign and associated with the user (see [0077], [0081]-[0082] in which external data such as historical data, event updates and performance data, etc is obtained independently of the user but is still compiled as part of the data)
Tai, however, does not appear to specify:
a political campaign
Giang teaches:
a political campaign (see [0029] and [0070] in which a smart contract NFT can be associated with a political campaign collectible or used for an event such as a political debate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Giang with Tai because Tai already teaches the claim steps being applied to a similar campaign, namely a sales campaign, which is also a type of marketing campaign similar to a political campaign in which you are marketing or promoting a candidate or party, and using the teachings of Tai for a political campaign would allow for using the benefits of NFT’s such as security, ability to associate with various items, events, memorabilia, and tickets, etc for the benefit of a political campaign which also depends on name and image recognition, events, and memorabilia.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
wherein the security token is a blockchain-based token utilized by a blockchain platform (see [0067] –[0068] in which an NFT is minted to one or more blockchains, the NFT associated with the data object; see also [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0064], and [0182]-[0185] in which the NFT’s are associated with a smart contract and used for event ticket sales for a campaign)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
wherein the data object includes one or more profiles associated with the user and wherein at least one of the one or more profiles includes the data independently obtained from the political campaign ((see [0066], [0070], [0078]-[0079]; see also [0077], [0081]-[0082] in which external data such as historical data, event updates and performance data, etc is obtained independently of the user but is still compiled as part of the data)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
storing the data object in a secure storage associated with the political campaign (see [0028], [0034], [0042]-[0045], [0068], and [0073] in which the NFT is stored securely on the blockchain or the payment server)
creating access information to the data object referenced in the security token (see such as [0051]-[0053] and [0102]-[0103])
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 4
Tai and Giang, however, does not appear to specify:
electronically sending a receipt to the user for contribution of the data associated with the data object
The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the advertising and fundraising arts to pay third parties for data to use in creating or optimizing a campaign. Political campaigns, ad agencies, and non-profits have paid companies such as Catalina Marketing and Nielsen for at least a decade prior to the effective filing date of the application for such data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine electronically sending a receipt to the user for contribution of the data associated with the data object with Tai and Giang because Tai already teaches gathering of data from various sources for a sales campaign, and paying and/or giving a receipt for data provided by third parties would allow for the third parties to be incentivized to share the data.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 4
Tai further teaches:
wherein the data independently obtained from the political campaign organization associated with the user comprises engagement data for the user within the political campaign storing the data object in a secure storage associated with the political campaign (see [0077]-[0079], [0088], [0232]-[0233], and [0279])
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 6
Tai further teaches:
wherein the engagement data comprises campaign event attendance, campaign participation (see [0077]-[0079], [0081]-[0082], [0088], and [0210]-[0220])
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
wherein the data independently obtained from the political campaign comprises engagement data on one or more digital platforms of the political campaign (see [0077]-[0079], [0088], [0232]-[0233], and [0279] in which the engagement data for the artist sales campaign includes such as data from websites and payment platforms)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
trading the security token on a data exchange in exchange for monetary value (see [0032] in which the NFT’s can be traded, including bought and sold, on various marketplaces, [0060], [0097], and [0284])
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai further teaches:
minting non-fungible tokens to at least one immutable ledger and recording the minted NFT in the NFT registry wherein entries in the NFT registry correspond to programmatically defined smart contracts written to at least one immutable ledger (see Abstract, [0037]-[0042], [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0069], [0095]-[0103], [0116], [0136]-[0137], [0156]-[0157], [0182]-[0185], [0197]-[0201], [0212]-[0214], and [0220]-[0224] which detail the minting of NFT’s to one or more blockchains and the minted NFT’s being recorded in the registry and associated with specific smart contracts written on the blockchain)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 10
Tai further teaches:
wherein the NFT’s tokenize media files associated with the political campaign (see [0089], [0109], and [0181]; the examiner notes that Giang has already been shown to teach the campaign being a “political campaign”)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 11
Tai further teaches:
wherein the programmatically defined smart contracts define tickets for access to campaign events) (see [0050]-[0052], [0110], [0118], [0183]-[0190], [0195]-[0208], and [0214]-[0216] in which the smart contracts define event tickets that are purchase by acquiring an NFT associated with the smart contract)
Regarding Claim 20, Tai teaches:
A method of fundraising for a political campaign, comprising:
authenticating a representative of the campaign based in part on input received from the representative of the campaign through a user interface generated by a computing device (see [0233], [0239], [0243], [0260], and [0294] in which merchants and users have accounts and are authenticated)
receiving a media file through the user interface (see [0006], [0066], [0106], [0302], and [0328] in which a seller interface allows sellers to upload, create, and request data objects to be used to create an NFT and monetized for the benefit of a sales campaign)
receiving parameters through the user interface, the parameters for use in programmatically defining smart contracts wherein the parameters include at least one campaign supporter benefit (see [0006], [0066], [0106], [0302], and [0328] in which a seller interface allows sellers to upload, create, and request data objects to be used to create an NFT and monetized for the benefit of a sales campaign; see also Abstract, [0037]-[0042], [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0069], [0095]-[0103], [0116], [0136]-[0137], [0156]-[0157], [0182]-[0185], [0197]-[0201], [0212]-[0214], and [0220]-[0224] which detail the minting of NFT’s to one or more blockchains and the minted NFT’s being recorded in the registry and associated with specific smart contracts written on the blockchain)
minting a non-fungible token (NFT), wherein the NFT identifies a data object including the media file and corresponds with programmatically defined smart contracts based on the parameters (see [0067] –[0068] in which an NFT is minted to one or more blockchains, the NFT associated with the data object; see also [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0064], and [0182]-[0185] in which the NFT’s are associated with a smart contract and used for event ticket sales for a campaign)
Tai, however, does not appear to specify:
a political campaign
Giang teaches:
a political campaign (see [0029] and [0070] in which a smart contract NFT can be associated with a political campaign collectible or used for an event such as a political debate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Giang with Tai because Tai already teaches the claim steps being applied to a similar campaign, namely a sales campaign, which is also a type of marketing campaign similar to a political campaign in which you are marketing or promoting a candidate or party, and using the teachings of Tai for a political campaign would allow for using the benefits of NFT’s such as security, ability to associate with various items, events, memorabilia, and tickets, etc for the benefit of a political campaign which also depends on name and image recognition, events, and memorabilia.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 20
Tai further teaches:
selling the NFT to a campaign supporter (see [0052], [0071]-[0072], [0180]-[0185], and [0214] in which the NFT is sold to a supporter of the artist’s campaign and the NFT us such as a ticket to a concert and can also be redeemed for memorabilia)
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 20
Tai further teaches:
wherein the at least one campaign support benefit includes a ticket to a campaign benefit, the ticket contained within the data object (see [0052], [0071]-[0072], [0180]-[0185], and [0214] in which the NFT is sold to a supporter of the artist’s campaign and the NFT us such as a ticket to a concert and can also be redeemed for memorabilia)
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 22
Tai further teaches:
wherein the ticket comprises an image of a two-dimensional bar code encoding ticket data (see such as [0087], [0128], and [0316] in which a bar code or QR code image is used in facilitating the transaction)
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0334492 A1 in view of Giang, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0033434 A1 and in further view of Herzberg, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0198797 A1.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 20
Tai and Giang, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the at least one political campaign support benefit includes a coupon code for use to redeem at an online store for a physical campaign item, the coupon code contained within the data object
Herzberg teaches:
wherein the at least one political campaign support benefit includes a coupon code for use to redeem at an online store for a physical campaign item, the coupon code contained within the data object (see [0081]-[0086] in which a coupon code associated with a political campaign is to redeem for campaign merchandise)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Herzberg with Tai and Giang because Tai already teaches a sales campaign in which tickets are redeemable for campaign merchandise such as shirts and posters, and a coupon code would allow for an easily transferrable and useable medium for redemption, allowing for a high likelihood of user redemption, which helps with campaign messaging.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Tai, Giang, and Herzberg teaches:
the method of claim 24
Tai further teaches:
wherein the physical campaign item comprises at least one of a sticker, a button, a sign, a shirt, and a hat (see [0052], [0181], [0185], and [0216]-[0218] in which the ticket corresponds to memorabilia such as a poster, a shirt, or campaign trinkets)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0334492 A1 in view of Giang, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0033434 A1 and in further view of Dakic, et al., Patent No. 11,055,737 B1.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Tai and Giang teaches:
the method of claim 1
Tai and Giang, however, does not appear to specify:
generating a data refinery based on campaign data and tokenizing the campaign data to provide
Dakic teaches:
generating a data refinery based on campaign data and tokenizing the campaign data to provide (see Column 29, lines 28-65 in which interaction and other data from a campaign is tokenized)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dakic with Tai and Giang because Tai already teaches tokenization of data and teaches collecting and storing of interaction, purchase, and other data associated with the data object, and tokenizing the campaign data would allow for secure storage and for dedicated access for those to whom the data is relevant to or who have acquired access.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0334492 A1 in view of Giang, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0033434 A1 and in further view of Dakic, et al., Patent No. 11,055,737 B1 and in further view of Redniss, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0414259 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tai, Giang, and Dakic teaches:
the method of claim 13
Tai, Giang, and Dakic, however, does not appear to specify:
monetizing the campaign data
Redniss teaches:
monetizing the campaign data (see [0041] in which the ad campaign interaction data can be monetized)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Redniss with Tai, Giang, and Dakic because Tai already teaches tokenization of data and teaches collecting and storing of interaction, purchase, and other data associated with the data object, and Dakic teaches tokenizing campaign interaction and other data, and monetizing the data would allow the system to earn revenue from their stored data or earn it for the campaign.
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Blaikie III, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0357024 A1- prior art by same inventors and assignee which teach some aspects of the applicant’s invention
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