DETAILED ACTION
In response to the communication filed on 04/16/2024, responded in following.
On this Office Action, claims 1-3, consisting of independent claims 1, 2 and 3.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under the 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under the 35 USC § 112.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under the 35 USC § 102.
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 .
Priority
The benefit of 63/459,889 filed on 04/17/2023 has been acknowledged.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea).
As per independent claim 1, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG).
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”): Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a network of computers of data center installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization, which falls under the statutory category of a machine.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO), the claims limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
In this case, independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. For instance, claim 1 recites: a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization.
Examiner asserts that the foregoing limitations constitute organizing human activity by managing interactions using generic computing devices and components to implement the abstract idea. Wherein in this instance the disclosed system manages the process of performing conversation analysis; wherein the data is collected and analyzed (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (organizing human activity and information managements) implemented using generic computer, which does not amount to significantly more.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claims as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is directed to abstract idea.
2019 PEG: Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Judicial Exception?
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per independent claim 2, it is rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 2 is directed to a distributed ledger that is distributed across a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization and security, which does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claim as written is directed to data per se, which is non-statutory subject matter, and alternatively, to the abstract idea of recording and securing information without any meaningful integration into a practical application.
As per independent claim 3, it is rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 3 is directed to a digital token or cryptocurrency that is rewarded to golf courses for their installing computers or data centers at or near their locations to form a decentralized network, which does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claim recites a fundamental economic practice (rewarding participants using tokens), which is an abstract idea, and does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-3 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
As per claim 1, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description and enablement. Claim 1 recites “a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization.”
The claim is not supported by an adequate written description because the specification does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that applicant has possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Specifically, the limitation “to achieve decentralization” is recited only as desired result, without disclosure or the particular structures, configurations, or mechanisms by which the claimed network achieves decentralization. See Ariad Pharm, Inc v. Eli Lilly &Co., 598 F.D 1336(Fed. Cir. 2010).
The claim is also not enabled because the specification fails to teach how to achieve the claimed decentralization without undue experimentation. Simply stating that computers are “installed at or near golf course” does not provide sufficient guidance on how the system operates to produce decentralization. See In re Wand, 858 F.2d 763 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As per claim 2, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description and enablement. Claim 2 recites “a distributed ledger that is distributed across a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization and security.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the claimed “distributed ledger” accomplishing “security” and “decentralization.” The claim merely states the desired result of decentralization and security, but the specification does not set forth sufficient detail of the data structure, consensus mechanisms, or encryption method necessary to show possession of the invention.
The claim is also not enabled because, without disclosure of how the ledger is implemented, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to devise consensus protocols, cryptographic methods, and system architectures to achieve the recited results. A recitation of desired outcomes without teaching how to achieve them does not satisfy §112(a).
As per claim 3, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description and enablement. Claim 3 recites “a digital token or cryptocurrency that is rewarded to golf courses for their installing computers or data centers at or near their locations to form a decentralized network.”
Claim 3 recites “a digital token.” However, the specification does not provide an adequate description of what constitute the claimed “digital token”, how such token is generated, stored or transferred, nor how the reward mechanism is technically implemented. The absence of a clear definition or structural/functional description of the “digital token” results in the claimed terminology lacking proper support in the written description.
Additionally, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed digital token or cryptocurrency being “rewarded” as recited. The claim is functional and result-oriented, but the specification does not describe the structures, algorithms, or mechanisms by which such a reward system is generated, issued, or transmitted.
The claim is also not enabled because it is overly broad relative to the disclosure. Implementing a digital token reward system requires detailed teaching regarding token issuance, detailed teachings regarding token issuance, blockchain or ledger integration, and transaction processing, none of which are adequately disclosed. Thus, one of ordinary skill would need to engage in undue experimentation to implement the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the phrase “installed at or near golf courses” of claim 1 is indefinite because the term “near” does not have a reasonably boundaries, and therefore fails to provide objective guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art as to the scope of the claim. See MPEP§2173.05(c).
As per claim 2, the recitation “a distributed ledger that is distributed across a network of computers or data centers” is internally inconsistent and unclear. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the ‘distributed ledger’ itself already inherently requires distribution, or whether an additional limitation is intended by ‘distributed across a network.’ Thus, the scope of the limitation is ambiguous. See MPEP§2173.05(e).
As per claim 3, the phrase “a digital token or cryptocurrency that is rewarded to golf courses for their installing computers or data centers” is indefinite because who or what performs the act of rewarding. It is ambiguous whether the token itself inherently reward, or whether an external agent (e.g., a system operator) issues the reward. This ambiguity fails to delineate the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. See MPEP§2173.05(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonnell (US 20240091646 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, McDonnell discloses a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization (McDonnell: [0073] With reference to FIG. 5 , a method or process of generating a digital asset authenticated by NFTs on a blockchain ledger (“decentralization”) is generally described in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; [0074] As a representative implementation of the methodology set forth in FIG. 5 , the initialization procedure at block 502 may automatically commence each time a virtual golf course is created, once the user 404 has completed a competition or round of golf, each time the user 404 purchases the green fees for the physical golf course (“a network of computers are installed at or near golf courses”), or each time the user 404 unlocks an access key; [0075] Next, the method 500 proceeds to decision block 504 to determine if the user 404 has procured a cryptocurrency wallet or other similarly suitable digital blockchain account that is operable, for example, to upload and maintain location and retrieval information for digital assets that are encrypted and stored in a decentralized manner).
Regarding independent claim 2, McDonnell discloses a distributed ledger that is distributed across a network of computers or data centers that are installed at or near golf courses to achieve decentralization and security (McDonnell: [0073] With reference to FIG. 5, a method or process of generating a digital asset authenticated by NFTs on a blockchain ledger (“distributed ledger”) is generally described in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; [0074] As a representative implementation of the methodology set forth in FIG. 5 , the initialization procedure at block 502 may automatically commence each time a virtual golf course is created, once the user 404 has completed a competition or round of golf, each time the user 404 purchases the green fees for the physical golf course (“a network of computers are installed at or near golf courses”), or each time the user 404 unlocks an access key; [0075] Next, the method 500 proceeds to decision block 504 to determine if the user 404 has procured a cryptocurrency wallet or other similarly suitable digital blockchain account that is operable, for example, to upload and maintain location and retrieval information for digital assets that are encrypted and stored in a decentralized manner).
Regarding independent claim 3, McDonnell discloses a digital token or cryptocurrency that is rewarded to golf courses for their installing computers or data centers at or near their locations to form a decentralized network (McDonnell: [0073] With reference to FIG. 5 , a method or process of generating a digital asset authenticated by NFTs on a blockchain ledger is generally described in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; [0074] As a representative implementation of the methodology set forth in FIG. 5 , the initialization procedure at block 502 may automatically commence each time a virtual golf course is created, once the user 404 has completed a competition or round of golf, each time the user 404 purchases the green fees for the physical golf course (“a network of computers are installed at or near golf courses”), or each time the user 404 unlocks an access key; [0075] Next, the method 500 proceeds to decision block 504 to determine if the user 404 has procured a cryptocurrency wallet or other similarly suitable digital blockchain account that is operable, for example, to upload and maintain location and retrieval information for digital assets that are encrypted and stored in a decentralized manner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaganti et al. (US 20050065950 A1):[0036] Other tables, the schema for which are not described, are established to store information such as user's contact information (comprising home and work address, telephone and facsimile numbers, address of a nearest relative in case of an emergency, personal web home page address, personal web bookmarks, design of a portal); … ; preferences such as choice of long-distance company, the features used in one's telephone service such as call waiting, call forwarding, three-way calling; names of friends and family members; travel preferences such as preferred airline, class of travel, whether an aisle or a window seat is preferred, whether a rental car is required, what size car is required; hotel preferences such as smoking/non-smoking section, any wake-up call is required, and if so, at what time, the type of amenities preferred or required at the hotel; pleasure-related preferences such as tee-time at a golf course, theater preferences, seat preferences, etc; or preferences for billing and payment methods (cash, credit/debit card, and the like).
McKenzie (US 20210357447 A1): [0134] In some embodiments, the system described herein may enable the user to interact with content being displayed on a user device, content being presented in a live setting, and/or content otherwise being accessed by the user. For example, the user may be enabled to control elements of content such as lighting, setting, locations, backgrounds, visuals, audio settings, volume, panning, audio mixes, story plots, stages, characters, accessories, clothes, fashion items, vehicles, dialogue, and/or any other element of content. In some embodiments, the user may also be enabled to select, change, modify, purchase, and/or interact with any element in content and/or in a metaverse associated with content. In some embodiments, the ability to select, modify, and/or interact with content and/or elements of content may be associated with payment of virtual currency, physical currency, digital currency, tokens, cryptocurrency, and/or any other value.
Norman et al. (US 20190102823 A1): [0057] In other embodiments, any suitable wireless network system could be used to connect to a wide area or local network, such as WiMax (802.16), WiFi (e.g., 802.11 and its variants), distributed networks, and so forth. The computing device 104 typically communicates over a network 107 with one or more computer systems of a golf course clubhouse/pro shop (which can be located at a golf course clubhouse/pro shop, or be remote therefrom), but may also communicate with one or more computer systems of one or more third-parties who are also connected to the network 107, 108, 109, and 110, each of which can also communicate with one or more of the other computer systems in the network, as well as the computing device 104, to provide data processing, communications, data storage, or other services to facilitate either or both of transactions as part of the golf course billing system, fleet management services as part of the golf course fleet management system, or some combination of the two systems.
McDonnell (US 20240062178 A1): [0091] FIG. 7 illustrates a flowchart of an example process 700 of modifying or updating an NFT. In Step 704, the Brand generates at least one cryptographic digital asset, that can be secured by an NFT. As previously discussed, the NFT can include some information or metadata, or could include a URI for a digital asset represented and secured by the NFT, the digital asset being stored off the blockchain. The digital asset can include a virtual object and metadata. In Step 708, the Brand mints the NFT associated with the digital asset to a blockchain network, such as the blockchain network 408.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUH whose telephone number is (571)270-5524. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/ANDREW SUH/Examiner, Art Unit 2493