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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that their claimed invention is not directed toward an abstract
idea.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Like those concepts, limitations found in claim 1 and as similarly containing in claims 9 and 15 recite the concept of:
“configure a first pairing between the physical good and an authentication mechanism that uniquely identifies and stores at least a subset of the information, receive, the first message, generate, upon receipt on the first message, a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing, configure a second pairing between the owner and the physical good, and write another transaction that is correlated with the second pairing, wherein the second pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing. ”.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a blockchain platform) to perform data reception, and configure, receive data written into int and then transmit a first message indicative of the owner acquiring physical goods, as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1, 18 and 22 recite receiving data, configuring data, writing data and transmitting data as such are not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to display an offer for insurance for one or more products after certain acquired activity from a sensor are acquired. The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly claims 1-18, 21-23 and 25-27 as amended are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues “This implementation is not merely any abstract idea, and in fact (despite the Office’s indications that conventionality and/or genericness of computing components is not to be considered at prong two of step 2A) is distinct from the generic implementations that are loosely alleged in the Office Action. The claims explicitly require not just a blockchain platform, but “at least one platform server associated with a blockchain platform,” “an application program configured to transmit a first message “in response to at least one Internet of Things (IoT) device capturing a transfer of the physical good”, a first API, and a second API different from the first API (resulting in a dual-API structure), which in combination all perform specifically as claimed to yield the particular machine and advantages resulting therefrom.
In response, in analyzing and turning to claim 1, it is noted that claim 1 is directed to a system for asset authentication comprising configuring a first paring between a physical good and an authentication mechanism that uniquely identifies and stores at least a subset of the information and generating a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing.
The Examiner then determines whether (1) the claim recites a judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test.
Accordingly, the additional elements (the blockchain platform, the application program and a first application programming interface do not improve (1) (blockchain platform)the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (the blockchain platform) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
Applicant’s representative then argues that “Additionally or alternatively, the additional elements should be deemed “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Specifically, the claimed elements provide end-to-end implementations that solve the issues related to “transparency and integrity” of the data related to the data maintained by such systems”.
In response, it is noted that the claimed invention is being implemented using a generic computing device using a server associated with a blockchain platform. Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed by the server associated with the blockchain platform at each claimed function involve generic and conventional functions.
Using a server or computer for storing data, configuring data, writing data to a storage device and transmitting data involves generic data gathering, data processing, data transmitting functions which are basic and generic functions of a computer, server, processor with a memory.
These functions of the server and its associated blockchain platform are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed as of their expected and conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' .. . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming").
The claimed functions of “write” or “writing”, “generate” or generating”, and “transmit” or transmitting”, “configure” or “configuring” are generic and conventional functions. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “configure[ing]” are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstracts by the courts as found in Re Grams which involved functions of computing a price for the sale of a fixed income asset and generating a financial analysis output.
Even when the claims considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not provide an inventive concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Accordingly, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to implement the recited abstract idea.
None of the steps, functions and elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing server associated with the blockchain platform are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The recited (1) "server and associated blockchain platform”, API, and “database are the additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database, and communication medium are generic computer elements); Mortg. Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F. App'x 1014, 1016-18 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (noting that recited "identity data," such as a hardware identifier, associated with a client computer device is a conventional generic computer component implementation); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The additional recited elements considered individually and as an ordered combination do not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The claimed invention does not improve the claimed server and its associated blockchain platform as tools, but is rather independently abstract ideas that use the computing server and its associated blockchain platform as tools. Applicant is directed to Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05).
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
A 35 USC rejection based on the claims as amended on 11/27/2025 is found below.
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 1-18, 21-23 and 25-27 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 22 are directed to a system. Claim 18 is directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A system for blockchain-based asset authentication, comprising:
at least one platform server associated with a blockchain platform;
at least one database configured to store information associated with a physical good; and
at least one application program associated with an owner of the physical good, wherein the at least one platform server is configured to:
configure a first pairing between the physical good and an authentication mechanism that uniquely identifies and stores at least a subset of the information, and
write to the blockchain platform, using a first application programming interface (API), a transaction that is correlated with the first pairing, wherein the at least one application program is configured to:
transmit to the at least one platform server, using a second API different from
the first API, a first message indicative of the owner acquiring the physical good, wherein the first message is sent in response to at least one Internet of Things (IoT) device capturing a transfer of the physical good, and
wherein the at least one platform server is further configured to:
receive, using the second API, the first message from the at least one application program,
generate, upon receipt of the first message, a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing,
configure a second pairing between the owner and the physical good, and write to the blockchain platform, using the first API, another transaction that is correlated with the second pairing, wherein the second pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing.
Claim 2 recites authentication mechanism is a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Near Field Communication (NFC) tag, or a holographic sticker that is associated with the physical good, and wherein the authentication mechanism is adapted to remain with the physical good through its lifecycle.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the holographic sticker is created using an electron-beam lithography system, and wherein the holographic sticker displays indicia corresponding to a verification status as part of the authentication mechanism.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the authentication mechanism is an image capture device.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the at least one application program is further configured to store the digital passport in a digital Web3 wallet.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the at least one platform server is further configured to: create a digital representation of the physical good; and
write, using the first API, another transaction that is correlated with a third pairing between the digital representation and the physical good, wherein the third pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing and the second pairing, and the digital representation can be used by the owner or a third party in a metaverse.
Claim 7 recites wherein the digital representation is derived from a smart contract.
Claim 8 recites the digital representation is an NFT.
Claim 9 recites wherein the digital passport enables the owner to access a marketing event associated with a manufacturer of the physical good, a partnership promotion associated with other owners of other instances of the physical good, or a cross-selling event associated with manufacturers of other similar goods.
Claim 10 recites wherein the physical good comprises a luxury good, a collectible, an artwork, a raw material, or an item in a supply chain.
Claim 11 recites wherein the at least one application program is further configured to: transmit to the at least one platform server, using the second API, a second message indicative of a subsequent owner acquiring the physical good, and wherein the at least one platform server is further configured to: revoke or deactivate the digital passport upon receipt of the second message, generate, based on the second message and the information, a new digital passport corresponding to the first pairing and a third pairing between the subsequent owner and the physical good, write to the blockchain platform, using the first API, yet another transaction that is correlated with the third pairing, wherein a link between the second pairing and the first pairing is invalidated, and wherein the third pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing, and transmit the new digital passport to the subsequent owner.
Claim 12 recites wherein the at least one platform server is further configured to:
create a digital representation of the physical good; and
write, using the first API, another transaction that is correlated with a fourth pairing between the digital representation and the physical good, wherein the fourth pairing is immutably linked to the third pairing and the first pairing, and wherein the digital representation can be used exclusively by the subsequent owner in a metaverse.
Claim 13 recites wherein the new digital passport enables the subsequent owner to access an event associated with a manufacturer of the physical good, and wherein each previous owner is restricted from accessing the event due to the digital passport being revoked or deactivated.
Claim 14 recites wherein an authenticity of a purchase of the physical good by the subsequent owner is based on a third-party validator, a gated non-fungible token (NFT), or a digital indication to the third pairing on the blockchain platform.
Claim 15 recites wherein the information associated with the physical good comprises a product serial number, a product description, a manufacturing date, a proof of authenticity, and/or compliance information.
Claim 16 recites wherein the digital passport comprises a QR code, an encoded visual identifier, or a unique wireless signal.
Claim 17 recites wherein the digital passport comprises a portion of the subset of the information associated with the physical good.
Claim 18 recites: A method for blockchain-based asset authentication, comprising:
receiving, by at least one platform server associated with a blockchain platform, information associated with a physical good, wherein said information is stored in at least one database;
configuring a first pairing between the physical good and an authentication mechanism that uniquely identifies and stores at least a subset of the information;
writing to the blockchain platform, using a first application programming interface (API), a transaction that is correlated with the first pairing;
receiving, from at least one application program using a second API different from the first API, a first message indicative of an owner acquiring the physical good, wherein the at least one application program is associated with the owner, wherein the first message is received in response to at least one Internet of Things device capturing the owner acquiring the physical good;
generating, upon receipt of the first message, a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing, configuring a second pairing between the owner and the physical good; and
writing to the blockchain platform, using the first API, another transaction that is correlated with the second pairing, wherein the second pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the blockchain platform comprises a public blockchain platform that uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism for processing on-chain transactions and a native token that is compatible with an ERC-20 token.
Claim 20 recites wherein the blockchain platform comprises a permissioned blockchain platform.
Claim 21 recites: transmitting, to an insurance coverage provider, the digital passport; and receiving, from the insurance coverage provider, a policy covering the physical good against a loss due to theft or destruction of the physical good.
Claim 22 recites:. A system for blockchain-based asset authentication, comprising:
at least processor of at least one platform server associated with a blockchain platform; and
at least one non-transitory memory coupled to the at least one processor and having code stored thereon that when executed by the processor causes the at least one processor to: receive, by the at least one platform server from at least one database, information associated with a physical good;
configure a first pairing between the physical good and an authentication mechanism that uniquely identifies and stores at least a subset of the information;
write to the blockchain platform, using a first application programming interface (API), a transaction that is correlated with the first pairing; receive, from at least one application program using a second API different from the first API, a first message indicative of an owner acquiring the physical good, wherein the at least one application program is associated with the owner;
generate, upon receipt on the first message, a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing and a second pairing between the owner and the physical good; and
write to the blockchain platform, using the first API, another transaction that is correlated with the second pairing, wherein the second pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing.
Claim 23 recites: wherein the blockchain platform comprises a public blockchain platform that uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism for processing on-chain transactions.
Claim 24 recites: wherein a completion time of the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism is based on a number of threads supported by the at least one processor.
Claim 25. (New) recites: wherein the at least one platform server is further configured to: write, to the blockchain platform, data from a second at least one IoT device indicating at least one real-time parameter of a manufacturing environment of the physical good; and automatically update, based on the data from the second at least one IoT device, the digital passport corresponding to the first pairing with compliance verification data.
Claim 26 (New) recites: wherein the at least one platform is further configured to:
write, to the blockchain platform, data from a second at least one IoT device indicating real-time parameters of raw materials associated with production of the physical good; and
automatically update, using a smart contract of the blockchain platform and based on the data from the second at least one IoT device, the digital passport corresponding to the first pairing.
Claim 27 (New) recites: wherein the at least one IoT device or a second at least one IoT device captures physical condition data associated with the physical good and the at least one platform server is further configured to:
verify an authenticity of the physical good using an AI model based at least in part on the physical condition data, wherein resulting data from verifying the authenticity is automatically written to the blockchain platform using at least one smart contract.
The function of “transmit” involves an insignificant post solution activity.
The function of “receive” involves a data gathering.
The function of “generate”, “write” and configure involve mental processes with/without a generic computer.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
because it amounts to the functions of:
“receive, the first message, generate, upon receipt on the first message, a digital passport corresponding to the first pairing, configure a second pairing between the owner and the physical good, and
write another transaction that is correlated with the second pairing, wherein the second pairing is immutably linked to the first pairing”/
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations found above understood to be additional limitations:
The claimed “AI model”, “platform server”, “application program” or “application programming interface”, “processor” and a “digital passport” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Writing data to a memory or to a blockchain platform or server platform and generating data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by a platform server or a blockchain platform using a first and second API and then generate and transmit data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of generating and transmitting and writing data to a server or computer.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “processor”, a “platform server”, “AI model”, an “application program” and a “blockchain platform” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor, server and blockchain platform are noted to a be a generic computer for displaying, transmitting data and for performing routine computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “server” and “blockchain platform” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 18 and 22 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson W. can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
December 2, 2025