DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 5/20/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered
Claims 1-3, 10 are amended
Overall, claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 4-16, 18-20 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 2 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 3, 17 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system, on a data communication network, for providing an artificial intelligence (AI) agent for immutable storage of consumer behavior and individualized offer transactions within non-fungible cryptographic tokens (NFTs) series, the system comprising: a processor; a network interface communicatively coupled to the processor and to a data communication network; and a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor and storing source code that is executed by the processor,
[B] activating a wallet for a specific user,
[C] wherein the wallet stores more than one series of NFTs;
[D] creating a smart contract for the wallet for user data associated with the specific user;
[E] collecting the user data, for the specific user in association with the wallet, and
[F] analyzing metadata associated with the more than one series of NFTs,
[G] with the individual consumer NFT behavior including the more than one NFT series storing previous user interactions with the more than one series of NFT series, and with the information associated with at least one other of the more than one NFT series;
[H] initializing, by a front end location-based application of a plurality of front end applications, responsive to the smart contract, a transaction through an offer to a specific user through a user device and based on a visit to a location determined by the user device,
[I] wherein the user device is authenticated to the frontend application and is communicatively coupled to the data communication network;
[J] responsive to receiving an indication that the offer has been accepted by the specific user, activating the transaction;
[K] creating, by the front end application interacting with a back end of the system with application programming interfaces (APIs), a new NFT in a series of NFTs on a blockchain,
[L] wherein the new NFT stores the specific transaction in association with the specific user, on the blockchain; and
[M] wherein the specific transaction is stored as an immutable metadata structure
comprising a transaction history and an ownership history
[N] using the new NFT immutable metadata structure as training data for an artificial intelligence model associated with the specific user.
[O] wherein the artificial intelligence model autonomously adapts its decision-making process by integrating the transaction history and the ownership history from the immutable metadata structure;
[P] training an AI agent from the NFT series based on the adapted decision-making process;
[Q] retrieving actionable items from the NFT series by recognizing patters in the immutable metadata structure using the trained AI agent; and
[R] automatically generating a report customized to the specific user and including the actionable items concerning the specific user.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) recites: collecting user data and analyzing the metadata ([E], [F]); storing previous user interactions with NFT series and initializing a transaction through an offer ([G], [H]); activating the transaction and creating a new NFT ([J], [K]); using the new NFT metadata as training data and training an AI agent ([N], [P]) and retrieving actionable items form the NFT series and generating a report ([Q], [R]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, the combination of limitations [E], [F], [G], [H], [J], [Q], [R], under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “collecting the user data, for the specific user in association with the wallet”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally collecting data/information, without physical aid. Further, the step “analyzing metadata associated with the more than one series of NFTs”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally analyzing data/information, without physical aid. Further, the step “storing previous user interactions with the more than one series of NFT series”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally saving data/information, without physical aid. Further, the step “initializing, by a front-end location-based application of a plurality of front-end applications, responsive to the smart contract, a transaction”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally initializing a transaction, without physical aid. Further, the step “responsive to receiving an indication that the offer has been accepted by the specific user, activating the transaction”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally activating a transaction, without physical aid. Further, the step “creating a new NFT on the blockchain”, as drafted in the context of this sclaim, encompasses the user manually or mentally creating a new NFT, without physical aid. Further, the step “using the new NFT data as training data”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally using the data, without physical aid. Further, the step “training an AI agent”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally training the AI agent, without physical aid. Further, the step “retrieving actionable items form the NFT series”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally retrieving data, without physical aid. Further, the step “automatically generating a report customized to the specific user”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally generating a report, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
In addition, or alternatively, independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) recites: creating a new NFT on the blockchain ([K]) and using the NFT as training data to train an AI model and training the AI model ([N], [P]).
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing following rules or instructions to train the model. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a system,” “data communication network,” and “immutable storage” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the qualifiers “wherein the wallet stores more than one series of NFTs”, “wherein the wallet stores more than one series of NFTs”; “wherein the user device is authenticated to the frontend application and is communicatively coupled to the data communication network”; “wherein the new NFT stores the specific transaction in association with the specific user, on the blockchain”, “wherein the specific transaction is stored as an immutable metadata structure
comprising a transaction history and an ownership history”; “wherein the artificial intelligence model autonomously adapts its decision-making process by integrating the transaction history and the ownership history from the immutable metadata structure”, as applied to the wallet, the user device, and the new NFT, the specific transaction, the artificial intelligence are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: activating a wallet for a specific user ([B]), creating a smart contract for the wallet for user data associated with the specific user ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 2, 3) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 2, 3) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 2, 3 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 12 recites:
generating an NFT to prove ownership of the AI agent.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claims 4-11, 13-20 recite:
wherein the offer concerns one or more of: a coupon code, a loyalty reward, a gift voucher, a digital avatar, a set of stickers, a survey and a transaction record.
wherein the smart contract is compatible with an Ethereum virtual machine (EVM).
wherein the blockchain comprises one of: Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, Optimism, Solana, and Ripple.
wherein the user behavior comprises one or more of: demographics, location, and time.
wherein user behavior includes name, affiliation, and business interests.
wherein the smart contract manages digital assets and coupons formatted as one or more of: ERC 721, ERC 1155, ERC 998, and ERC 3525. [40]
wherein the digital coupon comprises one or more of: a picture, audio, or a video.
wherein the specific user history includes user browser behavior and/or user social media activity.
wherein the AI agent comprises a chat bot.
wherein the specific transaction comprises a rental activity-based transaction.
wherein the visit to the location is a current visit to the location.
wherein the visit to the location is a past visit to the location
wherein the offer concerns one mor more of: a coupon code, a loyalty reward, a gift voucher, a digital avatar, a set of stickers, a survey and a transaction record.
wherein the smart contract is compatible with an Ethereum virtual machine (EVM).
wherein the blockchain comprises one of: Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, Optimism, Solana, and Ripple.
wherein the user behavior comprises one or more of: demographics, location, and time.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the offer; the smart contract; the blockchain, the user behavior; the suer history, the AI agent, the specific transaction the transaction location – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“creating and activating commercial transactions based on user past behavior and preferences, along with training an AI model for doing the same”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 4-11, 13-20 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “automatically generating a report customized to the specific user and including the actionable items concerning the specific user”. The limitation has no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
As per claims 1-3 Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim elements in the application as filed, the drawings or the initial set of claims.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230043702 A1 Sells; Patrick et al. MULTI-MODAL ROUTING ENGINE AND PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE FOR CURRENCY ORCHESTRATION OF TRANSACTIONS An integration system for a system of platforms includes an orchestration platform, a blockchain transactional platform, a digital transactional platform, a merchant system, a user trust platform, and one or more user devices connected to each other and a distributed ledger and/or a secondary mesh network via one or more networks. The blockchain transactional platform performs accesses and performs actions on the distributed ledger and/or the secondary mesh network. The digital transactional platform maintains transactional data indicative of an amount of first-domain value correlated to a user. The blockchain transactional platform maintains blockchain transactional data indicative of an amount of second-domain value correlated to the user. The orchestration platform manages data exchange, synthesis, fusion, analysis, and transformation between the components of the system, including for the orchestration of transactions.
US 20230419354 A1 KIM; Chang-Young et al. METHOD FOR PROVIDING VIRTUAL KEYBOARD SERVICE THAT PAYS CRYPTOCURRENCY REWARDS AND APPARATUS USING THE SAME Disclosed herein are a method for providing a virtual keyboard service that pays cryptocurrency rewards and an apparatus using the same. The method and apparatus may monitor use of a virtual keyboard by a user who holds a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT) based on an application, measure a keyboard NFT capability in consideration of a keyboard NFT attribute varying with a usage of the virtual keyboard, mine cryptocurrency in conformity with the keyboard NFT capability while the virtual keyboard is used, and pay the mined cryptocurrency to the user as a reward. Accordingly, upon providing a keyboard service for terminals used by multiple users more diverse benefits may be provided without being limited to simple usage of a keyboard, thus inducing an amount of communication between family members, friends, and acquaintances to be increased, with the result that the use of the service can be effectively extended.
US 20200410503 A1 Jamkhedkar; Prashant et al. Conditional Transaction Pre-Approval A method and apparatus for conditional transaction pre-approval is disclosed. In one embodiment, a computer system receives a transaction request, the computer being configured to perform a verification process to authorize transactions. The computer system may initiate, prior to completion of the verification process for a transaction, a prediction process using a model, to predict whether the transaction will pass the verification process. In response to determining that the transaction is predicted to pass, the transaction is pre-approved by the computer system, prior to completing the verification process. Subsequent to pre-approving, the verification process may be completed to determine if the prediction was correct. Based on the result of the verification process, the model is updated for future transaction requests.
US 20090177540 A1 Quatse; Jesse T. HIGH-PRECISION CUSTOMER-BASED TARGETING BY INDIVIDUAL USAGE STATISTICS A system for distributing limited numbers of promotional offers targeted to individual customers based on the customers' individual probabilities of accepting the offers is disclosed. Each customer can receive a limited number of offers estimated to be most likely to be acceptable by the customer. Customer-Based targeting analyzes each customer's past purchasing behavior relative to a master list of promotional offers made available to all customers and selects a number of promotional offers most likely to be preferred by each customer. Various techniques, such as empirical Bayes techniques and sparse data handling techniques, are disclosed for providing an offer acceptance probability profile tailored for individual customers. Product groupings and market segments are taken into account. Various marketing strategies are incorporated into the system. An individual can override a system computation and manually set the relative offer acceptance probabilities for an individual user or class of users using a graphical technique.
US 20210201404 A1 Schwartz; Lauren et al. DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING REAL-TIME OFFERS Disclosed are systems and techniques for dynamically providing real-time offers. For instance, user eligibility for one or more offers can be determined based on a plurality of dynamic user attributes associated with the user and one or more data sets corresponding to similarly situated users. An input can be received corresponding to an acceptance by the user of at least one offer selected from the one or more offers. In response to receiving the input, an updated plurality of the dynamic user attributes can be retrieved, wherein the dynamic user attributes are constantly updated in real time based on user activity. Based on the updated plurality of dynamic user attributes and the one or more data sets corresponding to the similarly situated user, it can be determined whether the user remains eligible for the at least one offer. An offer confirmation can be sent upon confirming eligibility.
US 20230230091 A1 Vaughn; Robert METHODS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE AND APPARATUS TO CONTROL TRANSACTIONAL DATA Methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture are disclosed to control transactional data. An example apparatus disclosed herein includes memory, machine readable instructions, and processor circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to populate encrypted input data into a first portion of a data structure, populate an encryption key into a second portion of the data structure, cause the first portion of the data structure to be signed with (a) credentials corresponding to an owner of the encrypted data and (b) credentials corresponding to a transaction host, and store the data structure in a ledger.
US 20100123965 A1 Lee; Lien et al. Near-Field Transducers For Focusing Light An apparatus includes a waveguide shaped to direct light to a focal point, and a near-field transducer positioned adjacent to the focal point, wherein the near-field transducer includes a dielectric component and a metallic component positioned adjacent to at least a portion of the dielectric component. An apparatus includes a waveguide shaped to direct light to a focal point, and a near-field transducer positioned adjacent to the focal point, wherein the near-field transducer includes a first metallic component, a first dielectric layer positioned adjacent to at least a portion of the first metallic component, and a second metallic component positioned adjacent to at least a portion of the first dielectric component.
US 20230030686 A1 Mukherjee; Joydeep et al. DYNAMIC OFFER SELECTION SYSTEM Aspects of a dynamic offer system are described. In one example, a method involves receiving a data feed of offer data, generating a set of current offers in a database using a set of offer rules and the data feed, receiving merchant configuration data associated with a merchant portal, and dynamically selecting current merchant offers from the set of current offers in the database using the merchant configuration data. A request is received for the current merchant offers, where when the request for the current merchant offers is received from a customer device, the request includes dynamic customer data customized based on user selections, one or more offers of the current merchant offers based on the dynamic customer data are dynamically selected, and a transaction between the customer device and the merchant portal associated with the one or more offers dynamically selected by the computing device is facilitated.
US 20140207584 A1 Wicha; Francisco Jose Larrain et al. METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR PROVIDING A SELF-SERVICE INTERFACE Provided herein are systems, methods and computer readable media for programmatically generating and/or revising deal offers for a merchant based on one or more merchant self-service indicators. In providing such functionality, the system can be configured to, for example, facilitate registration and verification of merchant identities, monitor and analyze various deal offers for merchants with similar merchant self-service indicators, that enable the system to determine the relative successfulness of a deal offer for a merchant and/or category of merchant. In some embodiments, the system may be further configured to revise the deal offer programmatically and/or upon receiving the merchant's approval of the programmatically generated proposed edits to the deal offer.
US 20200126173 A1 MEZAAEL; Abraham et al. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BLOCKCHAIN ASSISTED DYNAMIC CONTRACT ADJUSTMENT A system includes a processor configured to, responsive to a request for data modification, present available data options. The processor is also configured to, responsive to selection of a data option, present a consideration modification. Further, responsive to a user data option election, the processor is configured to present an amended agreement reflecting the consideration modification. The processor is additionally configured to, responsive to user agreement to the amended agreement, create a revised document and create a time ordered, sequentially linked record of the request, selection, election, respective responsive presentations, agreement and creation.
US 20200327529 A1 Mukherjee; Anindya et al. System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Providing Instant Credit to a Customer at a Point-of-Sale Described are a system, method, and computer program product for providing instant credit to a customer at a point-of-sale. The method includes receiving a transaction approval request including a full transaction amount for at least one transaction between a merchant and the customer. The method also includes communicating a credit approval request based on the transaction approval request to an issuer system. The method further includes, in response to the issuer system initially declining the credit approval request or approving less than the full transaction amount, determining, with at least one processor, customer data used to evaluate an extension of credit to the customer. The method further includes communicating the customer data to the issuer system and receiving a credit approval message from the issuer system including the full transaction amount. The method further includes communicating a transaction approval message to a merchant system including the full transaction amount.
US 20230135473 A1 Abiodun; Adeniyi Emmanuel et al. NATIVE BUILDING AND MINTING OF NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS ON A BLOCKCHAIN Methods, systems, and storage media for minting a digital collectible are disclosed. Exemplary implementations may: receive a request from a user to generate a digital collectible comprising user-created content; validate the user-created content was created by the user; receive a designation of a number of copies of the digital collectible that are to be generated; generate the digital collectible based on the user-created content; and record the digital collectible to a blockchain.
US 20160171555 A1 Buerger; David A. et al. Method and System for Customer Evaluation and Development/Provision of Multiple Types of Varied and Pre-Approved This invention relates to a system that generates pre-approved financial product offers, such as credit offers, after evaluating information retrieved from internal and/or external databases which contain customer information. The system is particularly suitable for generating pre-approved multi-product offers from the suite of products a user institution has available in addition to a default offer. Customized Product Offers to Evaluated Customers for On-Demand Acceptance and Fulfillment
US 20050010472 A1 Quatse, Jesse T. et al. High-precision customer-based targeting by individual usage statistics A system for distributing limited numbers of promotional offers to individual customers, the promotional offers being targeted to customers based on the customers' individual probabilities of accepting the offers in such a way that each customer can receive a limited number of offers that are estimated to be most likely to be acceptable by the customer. Customer-Based targeting analyzes each customer's past purchasing behavior relative to a master list of promotional offers made available to all customers. From that master list Customer-Based targeting selects a preset limit of promotional offers for each individual customer according to the likelihood that, given the opportunity to select any offers of the master list, each customer would prefer those few offers selected specifically for the customer. Various techniques are disclosed for providing an offer acceptance probability profile tailored for individual customers for use in the Customer-Based targeting technique. Product groupings and market segments are taken into account. Empirical Bayes techniques are applied to the estimation of the offer acceptance profile, and techniques suitable for handling sparse data are applied. Various marketing strategies are incorporated into the system. A graphical technique is provided for adjusting the offer acceptance profile that enables a user to override a system computation and manually set the relative offer acceptance probabilities for an individual user or class of users.
US 20240135378 A1 YOON; Seong Min FINANCIAL TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF A system for financial transaction includes: a financial transaction management computer that executes and manages the financial transaction of financial trader, and an identity authentication system that executes identity authentication of the financial trader based on identity verification information of the financial trader provided from the related persons of the financial trader, wherein the financial transaction management computer includes computer hardware that causes the system to perform: extracting information of unrelated persons not related to a financial trader according to a financial transaction request of the financial trader who is completed the identity authentication in the identity authentication system; requesting a financial transaction approval of the financial trader by providing financial transaction details of the financial trader to the unrelated persons; and receiving an approval information of the financial transaction of the financial trader from the unrelated persons, and completing the financial transaction of the financial trader.
US 20170162222 A1 Matousek; Robert et al. LASER MODE HOPPING DETECTION FOR HEAT-ASSISTED MAGNETIC RECORDING DEVICE Methods and apparatuses for detecting mode hopping in a laser diode or other optical energy source in heat-assisted magnetic recording. An output power of the laser diode or other optical energy source is measured and the output power is differentiated over time to determine a rate of change. If it is determined that the rate of change exceeds a threshold value, a fault signal is asserted indicating a potential mode hopping event.
US 20230289817 A1 Ashby; Erik Systems and Methods for Providing Decentralized Support Services in a Virtual Environment Systems and methods for enabling a person who is experiencing and interacting in a virtual environment to obtain customer support or other form of assistance within the environment for an object, service, or experience they interact with in the virtual environment. In some embodiments, this may include the option of obtaining support or a form of assistance from avatars or objects in the virtual environment. In one embodiment, this may be enabled by converting or transforming a request for assistance into an object (referred to as a support request object herein) in the virtual environment.
US 20230122894 A1 HATA; Keisuke et al. POINT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, POINT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND POINT MANAGEMENT METHOD Usage of token is expanded and user satisfaction is improved. A point management program causes a computer to implement a point accumulation function of accumulating points associated with a token corresponding to a user, according to a predetermined condition.
US 8670294 B1 Shi; Zhong et al. Systems and methods for increasing media absorption efficiency using interferometric waveguides Systems and methods for increasing media absorption efficiency using interferometric waveguides in information storage devices are described. One such system for an interferometric waveguide assembly includes a light source, a first waveguide arm and a second waveguide arm, a splitter configured to receive light from the light source and to split the light into the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm, and a near field transducer (NFT) configured to receive the light from the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm, where the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm converge to form a preselected angle at a junction about opposite the splitter, and where the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm are configured to induce a preselected phase difference in the light arriving at the NFT.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the former.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the objections.
The objection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The Examiner's analysis oversimplifies the claims by distilling them down to a high-level commercial objective while ignoring the specific, technical computing architecture required to execute the claimed method.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, an examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Second, all “the specific, technical computing architecture required to execute the claimed method” have been considered in Step 2A Prong Two analysis.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Instead, it recites a specific technical solution to a known problem in artificial intelligence: the structural integrity, security, and sequential provenance of training data.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“A specific technical solution to a known problem” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2016.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “A human mind cannot perform cryptographic hashing, manage distributed ledger smart contracts, or autonomously adapt a machine learning decision-making process by parsing immutable cryptographic metadata structures.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the instant set of claims does not recite cryptographic hashing.
Second, the eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not allege that a human being can manage a distributed ledger smart contract.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Under Alice Step 2A, Prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of the computer itself-specifically, the AI training pipeline.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Creating and activating commercial transactions represents a BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. The same can be said about providing trainings. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Because the claims recite a specific, structured method for generating verified training data and functionally integrating it to adapt an AI agent's decision-making process, they are directed to a patent-eligible technical improvement under Enfish and McRO, and are not a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize an abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, it is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Second, regarding “monopolizing an idea,” the essence of the argument appears to be that since the Office has not shown that the claims “would preempt all applications of the alleged abstract idea”, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper. However, as the Federal Circuit pointed out in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015, #2014-1139, 2014-1144), “[while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. ... Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot” (slip op. pp. 14-15). Similarly, in OIP Technologies, Inc. vs. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir., June 11,2015, #2012-1696), the Federal Circuit held “that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract. See buySAFE, Inc. v.Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345”.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments. The identified prior art does not read on following amended limitations:
wherein the artificial intelligence model autonomously adapts its decision-making process by integrating the transaction history and the ownership history from the immutable metadata structure;
retrieving actionable items from the NFT series by recognizing patters in the immutable metadata structure using the trained AI agent;
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights