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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 01/28/2026.
Claims 12-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 20, and 23 are currently amended.
Claims 1-11, 20, and 23 are currently pending and examined below.
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 1-11, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11, 20, and 23 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A stake sharing processing method, comprising:
obtaining a sharing request of a sharing user for sharing a stake resource with at least one shared user;
performing credibility verification on the at least one shared user based on the sharing request, to obtain a user set of a target user passing the verification;
determining whether a resource parameter of the stake resource meets a corresponding sharing condition, wherein the resource parameter implements a threshold that influences a sending of an access request to a blockchain node based on an item type carried in the access request and improves a utilization of the stake resource based on success results obtained in association with the implemented threshold; and
upon determining that the resource parameter of the stake resource meets the corresponding sharing condition, adding the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource;
after receiving an access request of the sharing user or a shared user for the stake resource, sending the access request to a blockchain node based on the item type carried in the access request, wherein the blockchain node queries a stake platform for a resource status of the stake resource from the blockchain based on the item type carried in the access request, and sends the resource status to the server; and
displaying a resource label to the sharing user or the shared user based on the resource status.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because stake sharing is related to commerce and economy; a commercial interaction because the above limitations describe or set forth advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between sharing user and target user). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment) . The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 also do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 4-5 and 10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 4 recites the additional element of “by the stake platform”. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “page”. However, in Steps 2A Prong Two and in Step 2B, these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “to the stake platform”, “from the stake platform”, “by a payment platform”, “the payment platform”, “to the stake platform”, and “the stake platform”. In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements of “to the stake platform” and “from the stake platform” also amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity. In Step 2B, the additional elements of “to the stake platform” and “from the stake platform” also amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network). With regard to the remaining additional elements, they also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process). Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “A stake sharing processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores executable instructions that in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to”, “to a blockchain node”, “wherein the blockchain node”, “from the blockchain”, “a stake platform”, and “to the server”. However, for the sake reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 23 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process). Claim 23 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the processor to”, “to a blockchain node”, “wherein the blockchain node”, “from the blockchain”, “a stake platform”, and “to the server”. However, for the sake reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Zhu et a. (US 2018/0204238 A1) discloses the concept of a red envelope being given to a friend as a cash reward after a person uses an electronic coupon shared by the friend. A friend enters a coupon and a coupon sharing page through the “Cards & Offers” entrance of WeChat. The friend shares, to friends of the friend, a coupon sent by a merchant to the friend. After a friend of the friend uses the coupon, a redemption request is sent (the redemption request includes identification information of the friend), so that the friend can be found by using the identification information of the friend, to send a red envelope as a cash reward. Then, a prompt page indicating that a coupon can be received is displayed on the page of WeChat of the friend. The friend clicks a “receive” button to pull an “open red envelope” page. The “open red envelope” page includes an “open” button indicated by A12. The friend clicks the “open” button to enter a page showing details about the red envelope and successfully receives the red envelope. That is, the first user may obtain a corresponding rewarded virtual article after the second user redeems a ticket shared by the first user. The virtual article rewards a red envelope, cash, a coupon, and the like. However, Zhu does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
You et al. (US 2016/0335684 A1) discloses a methods, devices, and systems for sending and receiving virtual goods. However, You also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Wang et al. (US 2016/0350782 A1) discloses a method and system for red envelope reward advertisement for social networking systems. However, Wang also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Xiao (US 2018/0234589 A1) discloses the concept of receiving an image sharing request from a first terminal, encrypting the first image using an encryption key to obtain a second image, sending a preview version of the first image to a second terminal, receiving an image viewing request from the second terminal in response to a user selection of the previous version of the first image at the second terminal and a user-initiated resource transfer from the second user account to the first user account, and returning the second image and a decryption key to the second terminal, wherein the second terminal is configured to restore the first image from the second image using the decryption key. However, Xiao also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited (CN 110148017 B) discloses a method and device for rights issuing using a blockchain, electronic equipment, and storage medium. However, Alibaba Group Holding Limited also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Beijing Jingdogn Shangke Information Technology Co. (CN 111767496 A) discloses the concept of a first user sharing information to a second user but also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd. (WO 2020/000766 A1) discloses a blockchain red packet processing method and apparatus , and electronic device and medium. However, Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd. also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “Here, claim 1 is amended to clarify that an item type carried in the access request is used as a triggering mechanism for the stake platform to generate an output associated with the access request. In particular, the item type carried in the access request of claim 1 can trigger the sending of information to the server. Item types can point to data associated with the access request and can include information that is stored by the stake platform. The item type carried in the access request may be implemented to grant, modify, or remove access of a user device to certain information. In this manner, Applicant asserts that "the item type carried in the access request” provides a technological improvement and is also used in a meaningful way beyond generally linking generic computer components. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the recitations of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application and are, therefore, patent- eligible. With respect to step 2B, Applicant also submits that when viewed as a whole, the combination of elements, including the item type carried in the access request recited in amended independent claim 1, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sending the access request based on item type is similar to filtering, which was determined to be an abstract idea in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)(c)). Unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. The claims at issue merely call for the performance of the claimed invention on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s).
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 SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621