Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
1. This communication is in response to the original Application No. 18/721,187 filed on 9/2/2025.
2. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
3. For the purpose of applying prior art, PreGrant Publications will be referred to
using a four digit number within square brackets, e. g. [0001].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract
idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. Consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(d).
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field;
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception;
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP § 2106.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
Consideration’s indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in MPEP 2016.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field MPEP 2106.04(d)(1);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine MPEP 2106.04(d)(2);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are NOT indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the in MPEP 2016.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h);
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See MPEP 2106;
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Categories (MPEP § 2106.03):
Representative claim 1 is directed toward a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 6 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity:
The claim, as a whole, recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves executing transactions of virtual currencies, which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
As to claim 1:
A method for mining virtual currency according to the physical state of a user, performed by a server, comprising:
acquiring physical activity information from a user terminal (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
determining the physical state of the user based on the physical activity information (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
outputting a signal to mine virtual currency based on the physical state of the user (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions).
Thus, the claim(s) are directed toward executing transactions of virtual currencies which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
NOTE: The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.1
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of some of the positively recited steps (e.g., “acquiring;” “determining;” and “outputting;”) including interaction with a plurality of devices and additional elements of:
(e.g., (a) “server;” (b) “user terminal;” “mine virtual currency;”).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of:
data processing (e.g., “determining,’ etc. step(s) as claimed); and
(b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “acquiring;” “outputting;”, etc. step(s) as claimed)).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed (e.g., the non-transitory computer-readable….) Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does NOT impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do NOT integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do NOT provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do NOT include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field.
Applicant’s Specification, as filed on 9/2/2025 does NOT provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[66] The methods according to the present invention may be implemented in the form of programmatic instructions that may be performed by various computer means and recorded on a computer-readable medium. Computer-readable media may contain program commands, data files, data structures, etc., alone or in combination. Programmed commands recorded on a computer-readable medium may be designed 12 and constructed specifically for the present invention or may be available for use by a computer software practitioner.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as:
data processing (e.g., “determining,’ etc. step(s) as claimed); and
(b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “acquiring;” “outputting;”, etc. step(s) as claimed))
are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activates previously known in the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do NOT add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The original filed Specification supports this conclusion at Par 67.
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Hence, the use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.2 Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, there is NO invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim(s) 2 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the what activity information in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 3 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe state information in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 4 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe sleep stages in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 5 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe sleep state in furtherance of the abstract idea.
In all the dependent claim(s), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is because the claim(s) do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claim(s) also are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 contains similar language or like deficiencies found in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not add any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sleep state" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019212099A1 Park Seunghun (“Park”) and in view of Annoni et al., (US 2018/0153476) (“Annoni”).
As to Claim(s) 1 and 6:
Park teaches substantially as claimed:
acquiring physical activity information from a user terminal (Abstract, Pages 3-4, 8, Claims 1-3);
outputting a signal to mine virtual currency based on the physical…of the user (Abstract, Pages 3-4, 8, Claims 1-3);
Park does not expressly teach:
determining the physical state of the user based on the physical activity information;
However, Annoni teaches:
determining the physical state of the user based on the physical activity information ([0013]-[0014], [0027], [0040], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0082]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the monitoring of different physical activities, as taught by Park to include the features of associating physical states with physical activities, as taught by Annoni in order to further identify the type of physical activity that is being measured.
As to Claim 2:
Park teaches:
wherein the physical activity information includes at least one of the user's EEG information, pulse rate information, body temperature information, pupil movement information, and breathing pattern information (Page 13);
As to Claim 3:
Park teaches substantially as claimed:
outputting a signal to mine virtual currency based on the physical state of the user (Abstract, Pages 3-4, 8, 14, Claims 1-3);
wherein the step of outputting the signal includes: (Abstract, Pages 3-4, 8, 14, Claims 1-3);
setting the mining weight of the virtual currency differently according… (Abstract, Pages 3-4, 8, 14, Claims 1-3);
Park does not teach:
determining the sleep state based on the physical state of the user;
…to the sleep state.
However, Annoni teaches:
determining the sleep state based on the physical state of the user ([0013]-[0014], [0027], [0040], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0082]);
…to the sleep state ([0013]-[0014], [0027], [0040], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0082]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the monitoring of different physical activities, as taught by Park to include the features of associating physical states with physical activities, as taught by Annoni in order to further identify the type of physical activity that is being measured.
As to Claim 5:
The combination of Park/Annoni discloses as discussed above; however, the
combination of Park/Annoni does not expressly teach:
wherein the user's sleep state is classified into N stages of sleep based on at least one of the EEG information, pulse rate information, body temperature information, pupil movement information, and breathing pattern information, and the step of outputting the signal to mine virtual currency based on the physical state of the user includes: setting the mining weight of the virtual currency differently according to the N stages of sleep, wherein N represents an integer of 1 or more.
However, Park does teach:
Disclosed is an exercise measurement device having a cryptocurrency mining function. The exercise measurement device according to the present invention includes: a user identification unit which identifies a user; a prescription providing unit which provides at least one among an exercise prescription and a nutrition prescription suitable for the identified user; an exercise measurement unit which measures physical exercise of the user; an achievement ratio calculation unit which compares the measured physical exercise and the provided exercise prescription to calculate an achievement ratio of the user; a virtual wallet which is allocated to the user and stores a cryptocurrency held by the user and a certification of coin mining (CCM) with which a prescribed amount of a cryptocurrency can be mined within a prescribed period; and a cryptocurrency mining unit that is connected through a network to a cryptocurrency system for allocating CCMs to users, using achievement ratios of the users as a proof of action (PoX), which is a condition for mining the cryptocurrency, to convert at least a portion of an amount of the allocated CCMs to the cryptocurrency and for providing the converted cryptocurrency to the users, and that stores the cryptocurrency, converted using the achievement ratio calculated for the user as the mining condition, in the virtual wallet of the user, wherein the CCM disappears after a prescribed period (Abstract)
However, the difference between the measured activities and assigning “achievement ratios” to a person’s measured activities, as taught by Park. Applicant’s claim recites, “…setting the mining weight of the virtual currency differently according to the N stages of sleep, wherein N represents an integer of 1 or more” is an example setting the mining rate the based on a specific type of measured physical activity. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art would know it is not distinguishable to measure one type of physical activity from another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the measuring of different physical activities as taught by Park to incorporate Applicant’s, “setting the mining weight of the virtual currency differently according to the N stages of sleep, wherein N represents an integer of 1 or more,” for the Applicant is simply identifying a certain type of physical activity and such physical activity subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As to Claim 5:
The combination of Park/Annoni discloses as discussed above; however, the combination of Park/Annoni does not expressly teach:
classifying the user's sleep state as the first stage of sleep based on the user's pupil movement information if the user's pupil moves more than a predetermined first distance within a predetermined first time, and based on the user's breathing information if the number of breaths of the user is less than a predetermined cycle and the user's breathing sound is more than a predetermined decibel.
However, Annoni teaches:
[0013] In Example 6, the subject matter of any one or more of Examples 1-5 optionally includes the second sensor that may include a sleep state detector configured to detect a sleep state transition from a first state to a second state. The stroke risk circuit may be configured to generate the stroke risk indicator using the sensed BPS in response to the detected sleep state transition.
[0015] In Example 8, the subject matter of Example 6 optionally includes the sleep state transition that may include a transition between a rapid eye movement (REM) state and a non-REM state.
[0051] The sensor circuit 210 may include sense amplifier coupled to a first sensor 202 and a second sensor 204. The first sensor 202 may sense a physiological signal, include cardiac, pulmonary, hemodynamic, neural, or biochemical signals. The physiological signal may contain information of blood pressure surge (BPS), or excessive increase in blood pressure. Examples of the physiological signal may include electrocardiograph (ECG), an electrogram (EGM), a heart rate signal, a heart rate variability signal, an intrathoracic impedance signal, an intracardiac impedance signal, an arterial blood pressure signal, a pulmonary artery pressure signal, a RV pressure signal, a LV coronary pressure signal, a blood pressure variability signal, a coronary blood temperature signal, a peripheral body temperature signal, a blood oxygen saturation signal, a heart sound (HS) signal, or a respiration signal (including, for example, respiration rate, tidal volume, minute ventilation, respiratory patterns), among others.
[0074] The method 400 begins at 410 by sensing a physiological signal and a physical state change in a patient. The physiological signal and the physical state may be sensed using respective sensors such as the first and second sensors 202 and 204 as discussed with reference to the stroke monitoring system 200 in FIG. 2. The physiological signal may be indicative of or correlated to blood pressure variation. Examples of the physiological signal may include electrocardiograph (ECG), an electrogram (EGM), a heart rate signal, a heart rate variability signal, an intrathoracic impedance signal, an intracardiac impedance signal, an arterial blood pressure signal, a pulmonary artery pressure signal, a RV pressure signal, a LV coronary pressure signal, a blood pressure variability signal, a coronary blood temperature signal, a peripheral body temperature signal, a blood oxygen saturation signal, a heart sound (HS) signal, or a respiration signal (including, for example, respiration rate, tidal volume, minute ventilation, respiratory patterns), among others. The physical state change may include a transition from a first posture to a different second posture, or from a first physical activity level or a different second physical activity level. The physical state may be determined from functional signals, such as a motion, a gait, a balance, a locomotion pattern, a physical activity intensity or duration, among others.
Therefore, the cited prior art of Annoni teaches the collection of plurality of different anatomical measurements associated with sleep state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the measuring of different physical activities, as taught by Park, to include the associate different bodily measurements to measured physical activities, as taught by Annoni, to determine if proper conditions exit to meet the requirements to mine currencies.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Dante Ravetti whose telephone number is (571) 270-3609. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. John Hayes may be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-4609.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from
the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information
for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public
PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system see
http://pair-direct5yspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the private
PAIR system, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-(866)
217-9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative or access to the automated information system, call 1-(800) 786-
9199 (IN USA or CANADA) or 1 -(571) 272-1000.
/DANTE RAVETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 12/2/2025
1 (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, NO 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106);
2 MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h);