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 the Application
Claims 1-19 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023, 4/25/2025, 10/2/2025 are in compliance with the /provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: reward quantity determination unit configured to / index determination unit configured to / object management unit configured to, of claims 11-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the various units noted above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: determining a quantity of rewards to be provided to a first node, with reference to information on a second node’s participation in at least one content provided by the first node / determining a first index indicating a level of the second node’s contribution to a value rise of the at least one content, and a second index indicating a level of interaction between the first node and the second node / determining a right which the second node is allowed to possess with respect to an object corresponding to at least one content, with reference to the quantity of rewards, the first index, and the second index. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining a quantity of rewards to be provided to a first node, with reference to information on a second node’s participation in at least one content provided by the first node / determining a first index indicating a level of the second node’s contribution to a value rise of the at least one content, and a second index indicating a level of interaction between the first node and the second node / determining a right which the second node is allowed to possess with respect to an object corresponding to at least one content, with reference to the quantity of rewards, the first index, and the second index. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining a first index indicating a level of the second node’s contribution to a value rise of the at least one content, and a second index indicating a level of interaction between the first node and the second node.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not include any additional elements. The additional element of using NFTs (“determining a right…with respect to an object corresponding to the at least one content” , where the Spec. describes the object as including an NFT and the right “may include a trading priority for the non-fungible token”) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional element of using NFTs (“determining a right…with respect to an object corresponding to the at least one content” , where the Spec. describes the object as including an NFT and the right “may include a trading priority for the non-fungible token”) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10, 11 are directed to a computer readable medium and system, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 10, 11 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 10, 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-9, 12-19 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1/11. The claims further recite the additional elements of using tokens/NFT tokens (claims 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19), and using smart contracts (claims 7, 8, 17, 18). Using tokens/NFT tokens and using smart contracts does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-19. Bradley (20230075767) teaches tokenizing content, including: managing content utilizing tokens from a data platform. Providing an incentive for a user to generate content. The content is received from the user. The content is tokenized into one or more tokens. The tokenized content is distributed. The tokenized content is monetized based on a smart contract. It also teaches rewarding users for additional data uploads/updates. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/11. Jakobsson (20220398538) teaches an NFT platform for facilitating engagement between content creators; it describes generating tokens comprising pieces of content, wherein the tokens are attributed to the content creators. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/11. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bradley (20230075767) teaches tokenizing content, including: managing content utilizing tokens from a data platform. Providing an incentive for a user to generate content. The content is received from the user. The content is tokenized into one or more tokens. The tokenized content is distributed. The tokenized content is monetized based on a smart contract. It also teaches rewarding users for additional data uploads/updates. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/11.
Jakobsson (20220398538) teaches an NFT platform for facilitating engagement between content creators; it describes generating tokens comprising pieces of content, wherein the tokens are attributed to the content creators. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/30/2025