DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 8, 14, 16 and 19. No claims have been added or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. 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 and amendments filed on 29 December 2025 with respect to:
rejections of claims 3, 8 and 16 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1-9 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Spiegel (US Patent No. 11,315,153 B1) in view of Quigley et al (US Pub. No. 20240346087 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections and, in turn, withdraws rejections. However, new rejections have precipitated.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A – Prong One contending that the claims do not recite a judicial exception [remarks page 11]. Specifically, Applicant contends that the limitations:
"generat[ing] a transaction indication in a blockchain data structure, the transaction indication comprising a sending address associated with the seller and a receiving address associated with the purchaser," and
"modify[ing] the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser,"
are directed to non-abstract, technical operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees in that, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps are directed to a method of human behavior wherein the steps make use of blockchain technology as opposed to improving blockchain technology (emphasis added).
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility contending that the claims are a practical application of a judicial exception, Prong Two of Step 2A, as well as subject matter eligibility under Step 2B - i.e. rooted in technology [remarks page 11]. Specifically, Applicant argues that:
“generat[ing] a transaction indication in a blockchain data structure, the transaction indication comprising a sending address associated with the seller and a receiving address associated with the purchaser," and
"modify[ing] the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser,"
provide, via a concrete and non-abstract machine, a similarly concrete technical benefit, e.g., increased transactional security and efficiency. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As with determining a practical application - Prong Two of Step 2, types of limitations indicative of an inventive concept – Step 2B - include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Further, limitations also indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these “types” of aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Generating a transaction indication and modifying an identifier are conventional activities in blockchain technology and, as such, do not convey an improvement to technology.
Regarding the comments regarding increased transactional security and efficiency, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05(a) which notes that accelerating an analyzing process, where the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer, has been found to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
Rejections have been clarified herein in view of the claim amendments and current MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility requirements.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application, filed on 26 June 2024 is given priority from 26 June 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 19, the representative limitations:
receive a token selection of a first cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens from a purchaser, the first cryptographic token comprising a player identifier associated with the purchaser;
and:
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser to provide the first cryptographic token to the purchaser;
are vague and indefinite in that it is not clear how the player identifier of the of the cryptographic token is modified to associate the player identifier with the purchaser (in the second limitation) in that the player identifier was associated with the purchaser in the first limitation.
Claims 1, 14 and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps appear to be related to modifying the cryptographic token to be indicative of a different (emphasis added) player. Citing [0078} of Applicant’s specification:
[0078] For example, a new transaction for the cryptographic token may include transmitting a transaction indication of the new transaction including a sending address 322 and receiving address 324, and, based on the transaction indication, modifying the player identifier data 318 in a new block 308 and/or the player identifier 328 of the cryptographic token 314 to be indicative of a different player (emphasis added).
For purposes of examination, the limitation:
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser to provide the first cryptographic token to the purchaser;
will be interpreted as:
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate an identifier of a different player with the purchaser to provide the first cryptographic token to the purchaser;
Correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a “system” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of selling tokens which is grouped under sales activities which is a method of organizing human.
in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]). Claims recite:
display a marketplace interface at a display device comprising a plurality of cryptographic tokens, each cryptographic token comprising an acquisition price and a seller identifier associated with a seller of the cryptographic token, the acquisition price comprising a sale price;
receive a token selection of a first cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens from a purchaser, the first cryptographic token comprising a player identifier associated with the purchaser;
receive the acquisition price associated with the first cryptographic token from the purchaser;
generate a transaction indication , the transaction indication comprising a sending address associated with the seller and a receiving address associated with the purchaser;
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser to provide the first cryptographic token to the purchaser; and
provide the sale price to the seller.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
a processor,
a memory coupled with the processor,
a display,
a cryptographic token, and
a blockchain data structure
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. The blockchain data structure is merely recited as being used for the claimed method. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Such functions include generating an indication and modifying an identifier which are, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, infer some sort of mathematical calculations.
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of selling tokens using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2-13 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of selling tokens.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the method of organizing human in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 14-18 otherwise styled as a device, and claims 19 and 20 styled as a method would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims 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; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Spiegel (US Patent No. 11,315,153 B1) in view of Quigley et al (US Pub. No. 20240346087), in further view of Albrechtsen et al (US Pub. No. 20250005544 A1) .
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 19, Van der Spiegel teaches a system providing for processing data in connection with computerized transactions for the purchase and sale of products and services to reach a guided price agreement in real time [col. 1 lines 60-64]. He teaches:
a processor circuit - [col. 1 line 60-col.2 line 5]; and
a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit - [col. 1 line 60-col.2 line 5] and [col. 3 lines 12-45], cause the processor circuit to:
display a marketplace interface at a display device comprising a plurality of “items”, each “item” comprising an acquisition price and a seller identifier associated with a seller of the cryptographic token, the acquisition price comprising a sale price – [col. 3 lines 12-45];
receive a token selection of a first cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens from a purchaser – [col. 3 lines 12-45];
receive the acquisition price associated with the first cryptographic token from the purchaser – [col. 3 lines 12-45]; and
provide the sale price to the seller - [col. 4 lines 32-63].
Van der Spiegel teaches applying his system in connection with computerized transactions for the purchase and sale of products and services [col. 1 lies 60-64]. Van der Spiegel does not explicitly disclose:
a marketplace interface … [for] a plurality of cryptographic tokens; and
provide the first cryptographic token to the purchaser.
However, Quigley teaches systems, methods, and architectures for crawling, processing, analyzing, and enriching distributed ledger data from one or more distributed ledger and relating to techniques for securing token-based transactions in decentralized digital marketplaces [0002]. He teaches receiving, by the set of smart contracts, a transaction corresponding to the NFT, wherein the transaction delivers a first purchase amount of cryptocurrency tokens to the set of smart contracts and indicates an address of a distributed ledger wallet of a first buyer of the NFT [0017]. He teaches a tokenization platform, seller device, and/or pre-sale marketplace which may configure the pre-sale of the pre-sale tokens [0766]. The pre-sale marketplace may create a listing of a plurality of pre-sale tokens at a set price, may create a plurality of auctions corresponding to the number of pre-sale tokens, may configure a start time at which the pre-sale tokens go on sale, may configure a countdown timer announcing when the pre-sale will take place, and/or may otherwise configure the pre-sale marketplace to make the pre-sale tokens purchasable by purchasers (e.g., using purchaser devices 9006) [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include delivering a purchase amount of cryptocurrency tokens using a decentralized digital marketplace as taught by Quigley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Neither Van der Spiegel nor Quigley explicitly discloses:
the first cryptographic token comprising a player identifier associated with the purchaser
generating a transaction indication in a blockchain data structure, the transaction indication comprising a sending address associated with the seller and a receiving address associated with the purchaser; and
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the cryptographic token to associate the player identifier with the purchaser
However, Albrechtsen teaches methods, systems, and articles of manufacture, including computer program products, for distribution of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) representing receipts for blockchain transactions [0003]. He teaches a blockchain-based system to distribute non-fungible tokens (NFTs) representing receipts for transactions [0018]. Each buyer and authorized seller accesses a payment software application to create charges and perform payments for selected transactions. NFTs are minted for each of the transactions by executing a receipt contract function. The transaction management application calls a function of the receipt contract that does not require gas (e.g., a blockchain transaction fee) to generate the commitment [0020]. The contractual commitment data can be determined by the receipt contract application. In response to determining that the transaction was successful, NFTs are minted by those designated as minting addresses in the receipt that can map to the buyer and seller involved in the transaction [Id.]. He applies his seller system to game consoles [0028] and [0029]. Examiner interprets game consoles as being indicative of Applicant’s players related to purchasing tokens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include designating minting addresses in a receipt that can map to the buyer and seller involved in a transaction as taught by Albrechtsen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, 15 and 20, Van der Spiegel does not explicitly disclose the acquisition price associated with the first cryptographic token as comprising a second cryptographic token associated with purchaser.
However, Quigley teaches a clustering system configured to cluster the data to identify clusters of token collections associated with similar distributed ledger transactions [0008]. In some of these embodiments, the clusters include a first cluster identifying a first plurality of token collections associated with a first type of distributed application on the distributed ledger and a second cluster identifying a second plurality of token collections associated with a second type of distributed application on the distributed ledger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include a first plurality of token collections associated with a second plurality of token collections as taught by Quigley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 16 Van der Spiegel does not explicitly disclose modification of the second cryptographic token as comprising reduction of a token value of the second cryptographic token
However, Quigley teaches conversion of each item token to a percentage of the tokenized token based on a value of the item token and the value of the basket of items [0179].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include conversion of each item token to a percentage of the tokenized token as taught by Quigley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Van der Spiegel does not explicitly disclose the instructions that provide the first cryptographic token as further causing the processor circuit to:
receive the first cryptographic token from the seller;
modify the first cryptographic token to reduce a token value of the first cryptographic token; and
provide the modified first cryptographic token to the purchaser.
However, Quigley teaches the sale being a set-price sale where the price is set ahead of the sale or an auction sale where the collateral item is auctioned [0384]. Examiner interprets an auction sale as indicative of Applicant’s modifying the first cryptographic token to reduce a token value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include an auction sale as taught by Quigley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the limitation:
wherein the seller comprises a first gaming operator, and wherein the purchaser comprises a second gaming operator
is not further limiting in that the limitation is a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim upon which it depends. However, Quigley applies his disclosure to NFT-Casino Gaming [0622]
Regarding claim 6, the limitation:
wherein the first gaming operator comprises a first casino operator, and wherein the second gaming operator comprises a second casino operator.
is not further limiting in that the limitation is a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim upon which it depends. However, Quigley teaches users of NFT gaming games and physical gaming devices [0629].
Regarding claim 7, the limitation:
wherein the first gaming operator is associated with a first gaming channel, and wherein the second gaming operator is associated with a second gaming channel different from first gaming channel.
is not further limiting in that the limitation is a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim upon which it depends. However, Quigley teaches users of NFT gaming games and physical gaming devices [0629].
Regarding claim 8, neither Van der Spiegel nor Quigley explicitly discloses providing the sale price to the seller comprises retention of a transaction fee comprising a difference between the acquisition price and the sale price.
However, Albrechtsen teaches the receipt contract that does not require gas (e.g., a blockchain transaction fee) to generate the commitment [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van der Spiegel’s disclosure to include a gas or blockchain transaction fee as taught by Albrechtsen because such fees are old and well known in the art of financial transactions.
Regarding claim 9, Van der Spiegel does not explicitly disclose the acquisition price being determined by a plurality of auction bids by a plurality of bidders, wherein a first bidder associated with a highest auction bid of the plurality of auction bids comprises the purchaser.
However, Quigley teaches an auction sale of cryptographic tokens [0384] as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 10-13, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Doctor et al: “FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP INTERESTS OF ELECTRONIC SPORTS WAGER TRANSACTIONS”, (US Pub. No. 20230108958 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692