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 .
Response to Amendment
The following detailed action acknowledges the amendments of the response filed on 08/28/2025. The amendments in the filed response have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3 and 8-9 are confirmed to have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending in the application and the status of the application is currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/9/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, the Applicant argues:
Application respectfully traverses the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the same reasons as set forth previously. However, Applicant appreciates the Examiner's suggestion that claim l be amended similarly to the claims of parent application 16/395,147, now U.S. Patent No. 11,829,996, to overcome the § 101 rejection. See, Office Action dated 4/28/2025, at the end of paragraph 9, page 5, lines 4-5. Applicant's currently amended claim 1 (which was provided to the Examiner as a proposal in the Interview Agenda noted above) is believed to conform with the Examiner's suggestion. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of the claims under35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
In response: The amendments to the claims don’t appear to obviate the rejection under 35 USC 101, where in combination to the other elements of the claim they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The concern is they don’t result in any technical improvement to the computer or to the technology executing the abstract idea of commercial and legal interactions. The amendments appear to add functionality to the central application related to maintaining a token wallet to support transaction operations, however, this does not provide a technical improvement to the computerized user device of a contributor. Adding functionality to the central application is directly related to implementation of the abstract idea of requesting and receiving predetermined types of data, managing the access of the contributor and the data entered, and performing operations such as token transactions and storing, and these are considered elements of commercial and legal interactions, an abstract idea within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s specification describes the “computer system” can be an electronic device such as a mobile electronic device that is capable of executing instructions to configure the computer/device to implement the methods of the present disclosure (Paragraphs 44-46 and 80-82). However, there does not appear to be any distinguishing features described that would be considered a technical improvement of the computer system compared to general purpose computers or mobile electronic devices that are capable of executing software or application instructions. Also, the claim does not include any specific technical improvement of the claimed token wallet itself or any specific technical improvement in terms of how the data that represents the token wallet is maintained or stored. Thus, the claims 1-2 and 4-7 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 as reciting an abstract idea without significantly more.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer, filed on 08/28/2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date has been reviewed and was accepted on 09/02/2025.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The analysis of the claims is based on the subject matter eligibility test that is detailed in the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Guidance Update Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update)(July 2024), the 2019 Revision to the SME Guidance (2019 PEG)(January 2019) and the October 2019 SME Guidance Update (October 2019). The current guidance is referenced in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) sections 2103 through 2106.07.
In Step 1 of the test, the claims were found to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, which is a process. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are directed to a system comprised of applications and components that execute the process. Therefore, the result of Step 1 is the claims are directed to at least one statutory category.
In Step 2A(1), the claims were found to recite an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites as follows:
a computerized user device of a contributor that is configured to execute application programs including
a developer application of a stakeholder, configured to request one or more predetermined types of data from contributors;
a central application, controlled by a central organization that is different from the stakeholder and the contributor, the central application being configured to: (i) maintain, for a contributor, a contributor profile comprising one or more contributor profile characteristics, (ii) enable the contributor to select and deselect a combination of the one or more contributor profile characteristics, and (iii) securely transfer contributor data, and (iv) maintain, for the controller, a token wallet ; and
one or more additional computerized system components in communication over a network with the developer application and the central application executing on the computerized user device and configured to perform one or more operations on the contributor data, and perform token transactions with one or more contributors, wherein the system components comprise a data exchange system storing segmented and aggregated user data in a taxonomy, wherein the data is from a plurality of contributors, including the contributor, and wherein the data exchange system performs data refresh, data pricing, token reserve, settlement, payouts, transaction batching, and fraud prevention;
whereby the system uses a hybrid centralized-decentralized architecture including the central application, controlled by the central organization, with a decentralized blockchain architecture to facilitate interactions between the contributor and the stakeholder.
The emphasized limitations are elements that describe an abstract idea. The concepts of requesting and receiving predetermined types of data, managing the access of the contributor and the data entered, and performing operations and storing, are all considered elements of commercial and legal interactions, an abstract idea within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims 2 and 4-7 further support the interpretation of the abstract idea, where the steps recite certain conditions to be met and non-functional descriptions. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(1) is the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Step 2A(2), the claims that recite the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-emphasized elements are additional elements that appear to execute the steps of the process. However, reciting software/application code as in developer application, central application and additional system components of an exchange system only support the use of a technical feature that is not an improvement to the technology or technical field of the claimed invention. Thus, the process does not show the use of a particular machine or computer that is an improvement to a computer used by a participant. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(2) is the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite applications of an exchange system, developer application, central application and additional system components of an exchange system, and a hybrid centralized-decentralized architecture. While the additional elements limit the abstract idea to a specific field of technology, there is no improvement to the functions of the recited technology, nor is there an improvement to another technology or technical field. Thus, the additional elements merely recite instructions to execute the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements individually, the claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements in combination, the steps do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea more than the elements analyzed individually and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. Therefore, the result of Step 2B is the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The test concludes the claims 1-2 and 4-7 are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN W HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 6:00-4:00.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached on 571-272-5350. 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.
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697