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
Applicant’s Response, filed 06/27/2025, amended claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 15 & 17. Claim 9 was canceled. Therefore, claims 1-8 & 10-20 are pending.
Need Power of Attorney
Applicant has not filed a Power of Attorney. One should be electronically filed as soon as possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 101 rejection’s Step 2A Prong One analysis, the encoding of data is broadly recited and, therefore, is interpreted broadly. “Encoding” may be writing a representation of data is some manner. Claim 10 as amended recites, in part, commercial interactions.
Regarding the § 101 rejection’s Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the examiner notes that the recitation of a metric of social good is non-functional descriptive material. The metric may represent any value, and as such does not improve any technology. It’s meaning may be substituted for any other measurement. More problematic is the way claim 1 is amended: the creation of the outcome metric is completely unrelated to everything else that is introduced in the claim. There is no relationship between the outcome metric and the recited data, actor, action, or outcome. There is a temporal condition recited (“wherein after the data is recorded”), but otherwise a metric is simply being created and verified by a human, which has nothing to do with the rest of the claim.
Regarding the argument that utilizing a cryptographically secure mechanism provides a technological benefit, the examiner notes that reciting at a high level the utilizing of a blockchain for its intended purpose is not an improvement to blockchain technology. Instead, it is simply taking the abstract idea and applying it.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the claims rejection mappings have been updated to reflect the current form of the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 1-8 & 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite apparatuses (claims 1, 10 & 12). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites “encode the data; whereinafter the data is recorded, create an outcome metric of a social good; and wherein a human verifier accesses and verifies the outcome metric”.
Independent claim 10 recites “encode the data; where after the data is recorded on the blockchain, a second human actor purchases the DOT from a first human actor and tags the DOT, and based on the tag, cause transfer of the DOT to the second human actor”.
Independent claim 15 recites “create a Directed Outcome Token (“DOT”) based on the data; and associate the unique identifier with the DOT, wherein the unique identifier is verified by a second actor”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Additionally, claim 10’s recitations of a purchase transaction falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity such that it is a commercial interaction.
Claims 2-8, 11, 14 & 16-20 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
These additional elements include: apparatus, computing device, memory, processor, and storage medium.
Independent claim 1 recites: “receive data comprising an actor, an action, and an outcome comprising a measurement of an effect of the action; and record the data on a blockchain.”
Independent claim 10 recites: “receive data comprising an outcome; and record the data as a Directed Outcome Token (“DOT”) on a blockchain.”
Independent claim 15 recites: “receive data comprising an actor, an action, and an outcome; receive, retrieve or create a unique identifier associated with the actor”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 12 & 13 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cella (US 2020/0294139 A1, hereinafter “Cella”).
Regarding claim 10, Cella teaches
An apparatus for providing transferable outcome metrics, comprising:
a computing device comprising memory, a processor, and a storage medium containing instructions, the instructions causing the device to [Cella, ¶ 2027, computer executable transitory and/or non-transitory media having a processor capable of executing program instructions stored thereon]:
receive data comprising an outcome [Cella, ¶ 0009, The platform is capable of enabling a wide range of dedicated solutions, which may share data collection and storage infrastructure, and which may share or exchange inputs, events, activities and outputs; ¶ 0119, services/microservices may include application programming interfaces that facilitate connection among the components of the system performing the service (e.g., microservices) and between the system to entities (e.g., programs, web sites, user devices, etc.) that are external to the system; a multi-modal set of data collection circuits that collect information about and monitor entities related to a lending transaction; (b) blockchain circuits for maintaining a secure historical ledger of events related to a loan, the blockchain circuits having access control features that govern access by a set of parties involved in a loan];
encode the data [Cella, ¶ 0134, in the case of distributed ledgers implemented using blockchain, the ledger may be Merkle trees comprising a linked list of nodes in which each node contains hashed or encrypted transactional data of the previous nodes];
record the data as a Directed Outcome Token (“DOT”) on a blockchain [Cella, ¶ 0162, a blockchain-based access token traded in a marketplace application; and tokens created and stored on a blockchain for contingent access rights resulting in an ownership (e.g., a ticket)];
where after the data is recorded on the blockchain, a second human actor purchases the DOT from a first human actor and tags the DOT, and based on the tag, the computing device further receives instructions to cause transfer of the DOT to the second human actor [Cella, ¶ 0162, a blockchain circuit may be structured to provide lenders a mechanism to store the value of assets, where the value attributed to the token is stored in a distributed ledger of the blockchain circuit, but the token itself, assigned the value, may be exchanged or traded such as through a token marketplace; ¶ 0247, transactions, party information, transfers of title, changes in terms and conditions, and other information may be stored in a blockchain 136].
Regarding claim 11, Cella teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the purchase comprises provision of something of value [Cella, ¶ 0160, a token can also be associated with rendering consideration, such as providing goods, services, fees, access to a restricted area or event, data or other valuable benefit; ¶ 0162, but the token itself, assigned the value, may be exchanged or traded such as through a token marketplace; and but the value of an asset may be placed in a token of value, such as to be stored, exchanged, traded, and the like; ¶ 0247, transactions, party information, transfers of title, changes in terms and conditions, and other information may be stored in a blockchain 136].
Regarding claim 12, Cella teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the computing device transfers some or all of the something of value to the first human actor [Cella, ¶ 0247, transactions, party information, transfers of title, changes in terms and conditions, and other information may be stored in a blockchain 136; ¶ 0162, but the value of an asset may be placed in a token of value, such as to be stored, exchanged, traded, and the like].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Cella (US 2020/0294139 A1, hereinafter “Cella”) in view of
Lovell (US 2015/0287148 A1, hereinafter “Lovell”).
Regarding claim 1, Cella teaches
An apparatus for providing verifiable outcome metrics, comprising:
a computing device comprising:
a memory, a processor, and a storage medium containing instructions, the instructions causing the computing device to [Cella, ¶ 2027, computer executable transitory and/or non-transitory media having a processor capable of executing program instructions stored thereon]:
receive data comprising an actor, an action, and an outcome comprising a measurement of an effect of the action [Cella, ¶ 0009, the platform is capable of enabling a wide range of dedicated solutions, which may share data collection and storage infrastructure, and which may share or exchange inputs, events, activities and outputs; ¶ 0119, services/microservices may include application programming interfaces that facilitate connection among the components of the system performing the service (e.g., microservices) and between the system to entities (e.g., programs, web sites, user devices, etc.) that are external to the system; ¶ 0119, a multi-modal set of data collection circuits that collect information about and monitor entities related to a lending transaction; (b) blockchain circuits for maintaining a secure historical ledger of events related to a loan, the blockchain circuits having access control features that govern access by a set of parties involved in a loan];
encode the data [Cella, ¶ 0134, In the case of distributed ledgers implemented using blockchain, the ledger may be Merkle trees comprising a linked list of nodes in which each node contains hashed or encrypted transactional data of the previous nodes]; and
record the data on a blockchain [Cella, ¶ 0134, In the case of distributed ledgers implemented using blockchain, the ledger may be Merkle trees comprising a linked list of nodes in which each node contains hashed or encrypted transactional data of the previous nodes].
Cella does not explicitly teach wherein after the data is recorded, the instructions further cause the computing device to create an outcome metric of a social good; and wherein a human verifier accesses and verifies the outcome metric.
However, Lovell teaches
wherein after the data is recorded, the instructions further cause the computing device to create an outcome metric of a social good [Lovell, ¶ 0045, “clean credits”]; and
wherein a human verifier accesses and verifies the outcome metric [Lovell, ¶ 0057].
Cella and Lovell are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, outcome tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cella with the scoring techniques taught by Lovell to achieve a quantifiable means to track transaction outcome history.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the encoding comprises encryption with a private key [Cella, ¶ 0134, In the case of distributed ledgers implemented using blockchain, the ledger may be Merkle trees comprising a linked list of nodes in which each node contains hashed or encrypted transactional data of the previous nodes; ¶ 0132, may include services for processing blocks, computing hash values, generating new blocks in a blockchain, appending a block to the blockchain, creating a fork in the blockchain, merging of forks in the blockchain, verifying previous computations, updating a shared ledger, updating a distributed ledger, generating cryptographic keys].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises image data showing some or all of the outcome [Cella, ¶ 0305, Internet of Things (IoT) data collection services 208, which may be part of or integrated with the data collection systems 166 and monitoring systems 164 of the lending enablement platform 100. Data may include still or video images of entities].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data is verified by the human verifier [Cella, ¶¶ 0057 & 0121, requirements or desired aspects of security and verification of information communication for the service, and identity management services (e.g., by which a financial institution verifies identities and credentials); ¶ 0132, verifying previous computations, updating a shared ledger, updating a distributed ledger, generating cryptographic keys, verifying transactions, maintaining a blockchain, updating a blockchain, verifying a blockchain, generating random numbers. The services may be performed by execution of computer readable instructions on local computers and/or by remote servers and computers].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein data associated with the human verifier is verified by a second human verifier [Cella, ¶¶ 0057 & 0121, requirements or desired aspects of security and verification of information communication for the service, identity management services (e.g., by which a financial institution verifies identities and credentials); ¶ 0132, verifying previous computations, updating a shared ledger, updating a distributed ledger, generating cryptographic keys, verifying transactions, maintaining a blockchain, updating a blockchain, verifying a blockchain, generating random numbers. The services may be performed by execution of computer readable instructions on local computers and/or by remote servers and computers].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises links or references to similar actions [Cella, ¶ 0227, linking events (e.g., for storage such as in a blockchain); ¶ 0226, such as aggregating or linking similar items together (e.g., collateral to provide collateral for a set of loans, collateral items for a set of loans is aggregated in real time based on a similarity in status of the set of items, and the like), collecting data together (e.g., for storage, for communication, for analysis, as training data for a model, and the like), summarizing aggregated items or data into a simpler description, or any other method for creating a whole formed by combining several (e.g., disparate) elements].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the data further comprises links or references to outcomes of the similar actions [Cella, ¶ 0224, a blockchain and smart contract platform for aggregating identity and behavior information for insurance underwriting, such as with an optional distributed ledger to record a set of events, transactions, activities, identities, facts, and other information associated with an underwriting process].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the data further comprises links or references to the similar actions by the actor [Cella, ¶ 0224, a blockchain and smart contract platform for aggregating identity and behavior information for insurance underwriting, such as with an optional distributed ledger to record a set of events, transactions, activities, identities, facts, and other information associated with an underwriting process].
Regarding claim 15, Cella teaches
An apparatus for creating a record for an actor, comprising:
a computing device comprising memory, a processor, and a storage medium containing instructions, the instructions causing the device to [Cella, ¶ 2027, computer executable transitory and/or non-transitory media having a processor capable of executing program instructions stored thereon]:
receive data comprising an actor, an action, and an outcome [Cella, ¶ 0009, the platform is capable of enabling a wide range of dedicated solutions, which may share data collection and storage infrastructure, and which may share or exchange inputs, events, activities and outputs; ¶ 0119, services/microservices may include application programming interfaces that facilitate connection among the components of the system performing the service (e.g., microservices) and between the system to entities (e.g., programs, web sites, user devices, etc.) that are external to the system; and a multi-modal set of data collection circuits that collect information about and monitor entities related to a lending transaction; (b) blockchain circuits for maintaining a secure historical ledger of events related to a loan, the blockchain circuits having access control features that govern access by a set of parties involved in a loan];
receive, retrieve or create a unique identifier associated with the actor [Cella, ¶ 0134, ledgers and distributed ledgers may include security measures and cryptographic functions for signing, concealing, or verifying content; ¶ 0223, a blockchain-based ledger may be used to validate identities in one instance and to maintain confidential information in another instance; ¶ 0224, data relating to identities of prospective and actual parties involved insurance and other transactions];
create a Directed Outcome Token (“DOT”) based on the data [Cella, ¶ 0162, a token includes any token including, without limitation, a token of value, such as collateral, an asset, a reward, such as in a token serving as representation of value, such as a value holding voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services; and translating the value of a resources in tokens; a cryptocurrency token; indications of ownership such as identity information, event information, and token information; a blockchain-based access token traded in a marketplace application]; and
associate the unique identifier with the DOT [Cella, ¶ 0162, indications of ownership such as identity information, event information, and token information].
Cella does not explicitly teach wherein the unique identifier is verified by a second actor.
However, Lovell teaches wherein the unique identifier is verified by a second actor [Lovell, ¶ 0057].
Cella and Lovell are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, outcome tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cella with the scoring techniques taught by Lovell to achieve a quantifiable means to track transaction outcome history.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein a score is generated based on a plurality of outcomes associated with the unique identifier [Lovell, ¶ 0050, the data analysis module 38 may be any combination of software agents and/or hardware components able to analyze the data collected from participants in a particular project through the participants' project registration forms or other forms of data resulting from participants' interaction with the project. The data analysis module 38 may generate data that include, but are not limited to, date and time of registration, unique identifiers of participants, participant information; and ¶ 0090, the system automatically tallies their volunteer hours and they receive "clean credit" scores based on the impact of the activity multiplied by their hours].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein an aggregation of a plurality of outcomes associated with the unique identifier and a category of action is used to create a score [Lovell, ¶ 0050, the data analysis module 38 may be any combination of software agents and/or hardware components able to analyze the data collected from participants in a particular project through the participants' project registration forms or other forms of data resulting from participants' interaction with the project. The data analysis module 38 may generate data that include, but are not limited to, date and time of registration, unique identifiers of participants, participant information; and ¶ 0090, the system automatically tallies their volunteer hours and they receive "clean credit" scores based on the impact of the activity multiplied by their hours].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein an approximate transaction time is a portion of the data [Cella, ¶ ledgers may provide a history of transactions that may be associated with time].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the actor's charitable history over a period of time is used to generate a charitable activity score [Lovell, ¶ 0056, the tracking module 42 calculates the time spent on a project and converts the hours into a measure of the impact that the service had on the community; and ¶ 0057, generate reports with all volunteer activities including time spent on the activities, credits related to the impact of the activities, and volunteer hours per challenge].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cella and Lovell teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the unique identifier is not publicly associated with the actor [Cella, ¶ 0223, a blockchain-based ledger may be used to validate identities in one instance and to maintain confidential information in another instance].
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Cella in view of
Gonnaud et al. (US 2021/0174432 A1, hereinafter “Gonnaud”).
Regarding claim 13, Cella teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach wherein the DOT is a stored as a nonfungible token.
However, Gonnaud teaches wherein the DOT is a stored as a nonfungible token [Gonnaud, ¶ 0114, non-fungible tokens are unique, stored individually and can be distinguished from each other, allowing them to individually have a collectible value. A crypto collectible is basically a digital collectible that resides on a blockchain, instead of in a closed system environment. Thanks to the blockchain, the ownership and scarcity of these tokens are verifiable without the need of a trusted party].
Cella and Gonnaud are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, blockchain technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cella with the non-fungible tokens taught by Gonnaud to achieve the predictable result of allowing the non-fungible representation of value.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cella and Gonnaud teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the something of value is tokenized as a DOT or a non-fungible token [Cella, ¶ 0162, a token includes any token including, without limitation, a token of value, such as collateral, an asset, a reward, such as in a token serving as representation of value, such as a value holding voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services; and translating the value of a resources in tokens; a cryptocurrency token; indications of ownership such as identity information, event information, and token information; a blockchain-based access token traded in a marketplace application].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 09/26/2025