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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received September 12, 2024. No Claim(s) have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18/745,167 filing date: 06/17/2024.
Applicant Name/Assignee: T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Inventor(s): Arunachalam, Kameswaran; Patel, Rushabhkumar; Pal, Rahul
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 09/12/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Examiner Note
With respect to claim 1, the examiner notes that the claimed operations of “system comprising”…”a plug-in software component that communicates with multiple application providers and multiple application users” does not positively recite the software component performing the “communicate” operations
The limitation of claim 1 which recites “platform that include allowing users to participate in obtaining and trading multiple types of token” which does not positively recite the platform performing the function “allowing users to participate…”.
The wherein clause “types of tokens comprise one or more types chosen from a group” does not positively recite a functions for choosing types of tokens.
The limitation of claim 2 and 11 recite multiple databases and their intended use without positively reciting any functions of the databases.
Method claim 10 fails to recite any steps. The claimed “ hardware platform that include allowing users to participate…” does not positively recite a step for allowing users to participate.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the limitation “dual-purpose trust certificate”, in light of the specification Fig. 11; page 8 of 16, page 13 of 16 to be a token certificate that is divisible so that a token can be split into two values under the token certificate.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-9:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 1 recites functional operations (1) communicates with multiple application providers (2) allowing users to participate in obtaining and trading tokens The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system, the system comprising a platform including multiple processors, servers and memory components; a plug-in software component; network services supported by the platform.
The plug-in software component for in communication.
The network services of the platform applied to allow users to participate in obtaining tokens
The claimed functions of “communication” and “obtaining”, have been found according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (communication and obtaining) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element network services of the platform applied to allow users to participate in trading tokens lacking technical disclosure amounting to no more than applying technology for a transaction.
When the claims are taken as an ordered combination or as a whole, the combination of limitations, the combination of limitations 1-2 are directed toward applying a system plug-in software component that communicates with providers/users, where the system network services supported by the platform for use in a transaction process.
The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2, but instead a deposit transaction activity and risk mitigation to prevent fraud. MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h). The claim limitations as a whole, as an ordered combination and the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited by the mobile device in the claims recite the concept of a financial activity. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, or as a combination, the operation performed by the mobile device processor and communication unit at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a commercial interaction and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “resource”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system, the system comprising a platform including multiple processors, servers and memory components; a plug-in software component; network services supported by the platform.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the plug-in software component that communicates and the application of the network services supported by the platform that allow users to participate in obtaining and is purely conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The application of the network services supported by the platform that allow users to participate trading types of tokens -are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
According to Alice limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic compute to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.... None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means.... Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer components and functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their 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 Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as 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 Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses off-the-shelf plug-in software component:
“Providers of mobile applications (apps) utilize a plug-in that facilitates receiving data from app users and rewarding app users for their data…. A CrowdDATA™ plug-in running on the CrowdDATA™ network provides a solution for web and mobile app providers… CrowdDATA™ plug-in 108 is a plug-in that can be integrated into mobile apps, as well as websites. Plug-in 108 interfaces with servers 104 that deploy data collected from app users to a CrowdDATA™ network that encompasses network services 201 and enterprise network services 203. Network services 201 and enterprise network services 203 are also referred to herein as the CrowdDATA TM network, or "the network… CrowdDATA™ plug-in 108 is a plug-in that can be integrated into mobile apps, as well as websites. Plug-in 108 interfaces with servers 104 that deploy data collected from app users to a CrowdDATA™ network that encompasses network services 201 and enterprise network services 203. Network services 201 and enterprise network services 203 are also referred to herein as the CrowdDATA TM network, or "the network". …(page 3 of 16)
CrowdDATATM network services 201 include Plug-In 204 which interacts with mobile phones
103 Of users 110. CrowdDATA TM network services also include various servers 104, including
authentication server 104A, question and response server 104B, reward server 104C, and data
market server 104D…. Figure 3 is a diagram of a CrowdDATA TM enterprise edition network topology according to an embodiment. CrowdDATATM enterprise network services 203 interacts with app users 110. A user 110 accesses the network services 203 via a mobile device 103, although it is understood
that access can also be accomplished via a web site. Plug-in 204 is the interface between the
user 110 and the user's device or other means of accessing the network services 203 though the
platform 101. (page 4 of 16)
As will be understood by those familiar with the art, the invention may be embodied in other
specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. Likewise, the
particular naming and division of the modules, managers, functions, systems, engines, layers,
features, attributes, methodologies, and other aspects are not mandatory or significant, and the
mechanisms that implement the invention or its features may have different names, divisions,
and/or formats. Furthermore, as will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the
modules, managers, functions, systems, engines, layers, features, attributes, methodologies, and
other aspects of the invention can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware, or any
combination of the three. Of course, wherever a component of the present invention is
implemented as software, the component can be implemented as a script, as a standalone
program, as part of a larger program, as a plurality of separate scripts and/or programs, as a
statically or dynamically linked library, as a kernel loadable module, as a device driver, and/or in
every and any other way known now or in the future to those of skill in the art of computer
programming. Additionally, the present invention is in no way limited to implementation in any
specific programming language, or for any specific operating system or environment.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not
limiting, of the scope of the invention, which will be set forth in the forthcoming claims. (page 16 of 16).
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward databases that store and make available data received from providers and users-well understood technology. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward types of tokens that include dual-purpose trust certificate divisible such that a quantum of value of assets is divisible -directed toward risk mitigation. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward base and top values of tokens – commercial activity. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward top unit represents value of Bitcoin above dollar value- commercial activity. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward NFT’s are attached to top unit-commercial activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward commodity backed tokens are attached to NFT in form of collectable coins- commercial activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward collectible coins series to combine storage of value in forms held in trust and attached to NFT- commercial activity. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward forms include Bitcoin and precious metal- commercial activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 10-15:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 10 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The steps of Method claim 10 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and market activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The steps of Method claim 10 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include system comprising network services supported by a hardware platform–is purely functional and generic. The claimed limitations do not positively recite any operations performed by the claimed hardware platform, instead recites its intended use - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The steps of Method claim 10 corresponds to system functions of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses off-the-shelf plug-in software component:
“Providers of mobile applications (apps) utilize a plug-in that facilitates receiving data from app users and rewarding app users for their data…. A CrowdDATA™ plug-in running on the CrowdDATA™ network provides a solution for web and mobile app providers… CrowdDATA™ plug-in 108 is a plug-in that can be integrated into mobile apps, as well as websites. Plug-in 108 interfaces with servers 104 that deploy data collected from app users to a CrowdDATA™ network that encompasses network services 201 and enterprise network services 203. Network services 201 and enterprise network services 203 are also referred to herein as the CrowdDATA TM network, or "the network… CrowdDATA™ plug-in 108 is a plug-in that can be integrated into mobile apps, as well as websites. Plug-in 108 interfaces with servers 104 that deploy data collected from app users to a CrowdDATA™ network that encompasses network services 201 and enterprise network services 203. Network services 201 and enterprise network services 203 are also referred to herein as the CrowdDATA TM network, or "the network". …(page 3 of 16)
CrowdDATATM network services 201 include Plug-In 204 which interacts with mobile phones
103 Of users 110. CrowdDATA TM network services also include various servers 104, including
authentication server 104A, question and response server 104B, reward server 104C, and data
market server 104D…. Figure 3 is a diagram of a CrowdDATA TM enterprise edition network topology according to an embodiment. CrowdDATATM enterprise network services 203 interacts with app users 110. A user 110 accesses the network services 203 via a mobile device 103, although it is understood
that access can also be accomplished via a web site. Plug-in 204 is the interface between the
user 110 and the user's device or other means of accessing the network services 203 though the
platform 101. (page 4 of 16)
As will be understood by those familiar with the art, the invention may be embodied in other
specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. Likewise, the
particular naming and division of the modules, managers, functions, systems, engines, layers,
features, attributes, methodologies, and other aspects are not mandatory or significant, and the
mechanisms that implement the invention or its features may have different names, divisions,
and/or formats. Furthermore, as will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the
modules, managers, functions, systems, engines, layers, features, attributes, methodologies, and
other aspects of the invention can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware, or any
combination of the three. Of course, wherever a component of the present invention is
implemented as software, the component can be implemented as a script, as a standalone
program, as part of a larger program, as a plurality of separate scripts and/or programs, as a
statically or dynamically linked library, as a kernel loadable module, as a device driver, and/or in
every and any other way known now or in the future to those of skill in the art of computer
programming. Additionally, the present invention is in no way limited to implementation in any
specific programming language, or for any specific operating system or environment.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not
limiting, of the scope of the invention, which will be set forth in the forthcoming claims. (page 16 of 16).
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 11-15 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward databases that store and make available data received from providers and users-well understood technology. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward types of tokens that include dual-purpose trust certificate divisible such that a quantum of value of assets is divisible -directed toward risk mitigation. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward base and top values of tokens – commercial activity. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward top unit represents value of Bitcoin above dollar value- commercial activity. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward NFT’s are attached to top unit-commercial activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 11-15 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2023/0128945 by Khan (Khan), and further in view of CN 114708102 A by Zhang et al (Zhang)
In reference to Claim 1:
Khan teaches:
A system for providing and administering access to tokens ((Khan) in at least Abstract), the system 1
(see rejection of claim 1 above). comprising:
a platform including multiple processors, servers, and memory components ((Khan) in at least para 0011, para 0044-0045, para 0241, para 0255, para 0290-0292, para 0294);
a plug-in software component that communicates with multiple application providers and multiple application users ((Khan) in at least para 0010, para 0097, para 0374-0375, para 0379-0380, para 01042, para 01044);
network services supported by the platform that include allowing users to participate in obtaining and trading multiple types of tokens, wherein the types of tokens comprise one or more types chosen from a group comprising, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) ((Khan) in at least abstract; para 0010, para 0014 , para 0151, para 0172-0173, para 0312, para 0331-0332, para 0348-0349); and
Khan does not explicitly teach:
NFTs that include an attached trust certificate.
Zhang teaches:
NFTs that include an attached trust certificate.((Zhang) in at least abstract; para 0019)
Both Khan and Zhang teach transaction where assets are exchanged between parties using NFT’s. Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset is merged on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s in transactions of Khan to include a token certificate as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset is merged on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens).
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising
multiple databases that store and make available data received from both the application providers and the application users. ((Khan) in at least para 0015, para 0102)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
The system of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the group of types of tokens further comprises:
Khan does not explicitly teach:
NFTs that include an attached dual-purpose trust certificate that is divisible such that a quantum of value of assets is divisible into detachable units
Zhang teaches:
NFTs that include an attached dual-purpose trust certificate that is divisible such that a quantum of value of assets is divisible into detachable units. ((Zhang) in at least para 0015-0016, para 0019-0022)
Both Khan and Zhang teach transaction where assets are exchanged between parties using NFT’s. Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include splitting the NFT with a attached certificate as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT.
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the components comprise a fixed base unit and a variable top unit.
Zhang teaches:
wherein the components comprise a fixed base unit and a variable top unit. ((Zhang) in at least para 0013, para 0015-0016 wherein the prior art teaches “it also can transfer the several specified partial bill to the transferred party in batch, so as to improve the transfer efficiency. taking the split bill as the upper chain of the digital asset”)
Both Khan and Zhang teach transaction where assets are exchanged between parties using NFT’s. Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include splitting the NFT with a attached certificate as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT.
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of independent claim 10
The steps of method claim 10 corresponds to intended operations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11
The steps of method claim 11 corresponds to intended operations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
The steps of method claim 12 corresponds to intended operations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The steps of method claim 13 corresponds to intended operations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 of claim 3 above, Claim(s) 14-15 of claim 13 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2023/0128945 by Khan (Khan), in view of CN 114708102 A by Zhang et al (Zhang), and further in view of WO 2022/118263 A1 by Trock (Trock)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5.
The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the top unit represents all of the value of a Bitcoin (BTC) above a chosen dollar value.
Zhang teaches:
wherein the top unit represents all of the value of a …[cryptocurrency] above a chosen dollar value. ((Zhang) in at least para 0013, para 0015-0017 wherein the prior art teaches “it also can transfer the several specified partial bill to the transferred party in batch… taking the split bill as the upper chain of the digital asset”)
Both Khan and Zhang teach transaction where assets are exchanged between parties using NFT’s. Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include splitting the NFT with a attached certificate as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT.
Trock teaches:
value of a Bitcoin (BTC) above a chosen dollar value. ((Trock) in at least page 1 lines 8-11, page 18 lines 9-16, page 22 lines 10-16, page 24 lines 44-65, page 30 lines 30-34, page 33 lines 23-28, page 34 lines 36-41 wherein the prior art teaches atomic swaps depending on assets swapped, page 38 lines 54-page 39 lines 1-10.
Both Khan and Trock teach token transaction processes. Trock teaches the motivation that typically Ethereum (cryptocurrencies) have typically been used, but that the use of Bitcoin as representative of a token as a specific fiat type token or various protocol per fiat type where Bitcoin tokens are return for fiat transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s Ethereum tokens for transaction of Khan to include Bitcoin as taught by Trock since Trock teaches the motivation that typically Ethereum (cryptocurrencies) have typically been used, but that the use of Bitcoin as representative of a token as a specific fiat type token or various protocol per fiat type where Bitcoin tokens are return for fiat transfer.
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Khan, Zhang and Trock discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
The system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein NFTs are attached to the top unit.
Zhang teaches:
wherein NFTs are attached to the top unit. ((Zhang) in at least para 0013, para 0015-0017 wherein the prior art teaches “it also can transfer the several specified partial bill to the transferred party in batch… taking the split bill as the upper chain of the digital asset”)
Both Khan and Zhang teach transaction where assets are exchanged between parties using NFT’s. Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include splitting the NFT with a attached certificate as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches the motivation that in the calculation of the NFT creating a pass certificate where the NFT digital asset on ERC1155 (multi-token standard on Ethereum allowing a smart contract to manage multiple types of tokens) can be split in order to execute a bill split scene for splitting the corresponding NFT.
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The steps of method claim 14 corresponds to intended operations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Khan and Zhang discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
The steps of method claim 15 corresponds to intended operations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2023/0128945 by Khan (Khan), in view of CN 114708102 A by Zhang et al (Zhang) in view of WO 2022/118263 A1 by Trock (Trock) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2023/0186301 A1 by Enneking (Enneking)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Khan, Zhang and Trock discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
The system of claim 6, (see rejection of claim 6 above)
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein commodity-backed tokens are attached to an NFT art form, in the form of unique collectible coin series.
Enneking teaches:
wherein commodity-backed tokens are attached to an NFT art form, in the form of unique collectible coin series. ((Enneking) in at least para 0007)
Both Khan and Enneking are directed toward tokens representing assets. Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include collectible coins assets as taught by Enneking since Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins.
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Khan, Zhang, Trock and Enneking discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8.
The system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above),
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the collectible coins series is a way to combine storage of value on various forms held in trust and attached to an NFT art form.
Enneking teaches:
wherein the collectible coins series is a way to combine storage of value on various forms held in trust and attached to an NFT art form. ((Enneking) in at least Abstract; para 0003, para 0007, para 0013, para 0019)
Both Khan and Enneking are directed toward tokens representing assets. Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation in a smart contract with predefined condition holding payments in escrow and ownership interest, can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include collectible coins assets as taught by Enneking since Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation in a smart contract with predefined condition holding payments in escrow and ownership interest, can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins.
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Khan, Zhang, Trock and Enneking discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Khan further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
The system of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above),
Khan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the various forms include without limitation Bitcoin and precious metal.
Enneking teaches:
wherein the various forms include without limitation Bitcoin and precious metal. ((Enneking) in at least para 0007)
Both Khan and Enneking are directed toward tokens representing assets. Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins and metals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of applying NFT’s for transaction of Khan to include collectible coins assets as taught by Enneking since Enneking teaches the motivation that assets used for token representation can be any tangible or intangible medium of value including collectible coins and metals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. By US Pub No. 2021/0097528 A1 by Wang, WO 2022/116092 by Trock;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695