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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 3/4/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 6-7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are added.
Claim(s) 4 is/are cancelled.
Currently, claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are pending.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 6, 7,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “assigning source data for assigning an award corresponding to a user; and assigning the award to the user based on the source data, changing an accumulation balance of the source data when a correspondence relationship between the user and the token is canceled”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 8 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a source data management program including instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing a computer to perform operations, a communication network, a server, a user network”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Samarthyam (2024/0100444) teaches the recited additional elements of a system comprising computer elements and using a NFT for a user in a gaming environment (Fig 1, ¶¶0041, 0052, 0098).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, performing repetitive calculation, Flook, rules in In re Smith, and electronic recordkeeping in Alice.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Step 2A Prong 1,
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitation of “changing an accumulation balance of the source data when a correspondence relationship between the user and the token is canceled” alters or affects how the process steps of the claimed invention are performed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitation describes a case where the association between the user and the token is lost, for example, as the user sells an NFT to another person (specification, ¶¶0085-0086). In other words, the recited element describes a result of a human behavior of performing a transaction. As such, the amended claims are still considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2,
Applicant argues that the additional limitation of “changing an accumulation balance of the source data when a correspondence relationship between the user and the token is canceled” is not mere data gathering and data transmission. As noted in the specification (Fig 2, ¶¶0022-0027, 0039, 0041), the accumulation balance management module in the source data management system performs the feature of the recited element, wherein the source data management system includes the server and the user terminal to implement various functions for executing various processes in response to operations of the users, for example, transmitting transaction data and updating user’s accumulation record. Applicant further argues that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they govern how data be modified in response to a particular system event. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the additional elements describe updating the accumulation record in response to a user’s action. There is no recited improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., no change to memory hierarchy, graphics pipeline, input handling, networking, or processor operation). The claims do not specify a particular technical data structure or algorithm that improves computer performance. Further, there is no particular machine beyond a generic computer; merely executing rules on a routine processor is insufficient to integrate an exception into a practical application.
Step 2B,
Applicant argues that the Examiner fails to provide reasoning for Berkheimer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per PEG, Examiner identifies the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a source data management program including instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing a computer to perform operations, a communication network, a server, a user network”, then the additional elements are evaluated and determined as generic computer elements that are considered to be well understood conventional activity, i.e., the additional elements are utilized to transmit, store, and record data. As result, Samarthyam teaches a similar gaming environment using a NFT for a user with the recited additional elements of a system comprising generic computer elements. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the additional limitation of changing an accumulation balance of source data upon cancellation of a defined corresponding relationship between a user an token amount to significantly more than routine computer execution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In 2B, the additional elements are assessed to determine if they are significantly more. Again, here, the additional elements are: a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a source data management program including instructions, one or more processors, a communication network, a server, a user network. According to the specification, each element is a generic computer component (¶¶0023, 0026-0027, 0033-0034, 0095, 0097). There is no recitation of unconventional hardware, specialized circuitry, or a non-generic arrangement. The recited operations (assigning source data for assigning an award, assigning the award to the user, changing an accumulation balance…when a correspondence relationship between the user and the token is canceled) are routine data manipulations in computer games, and the specification presents them as such. Thus, the generic computer elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. For the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights