DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communications filed on July 8, 2024. Claims 1-16 are pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
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.
Continuation
This application is a continuation-in-part of the U.S. application Ser. No. 17 /551,594 filed December 15, 2021, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application Nos. 10-2021-0072477, 10-2021-0072478, and 10-2021-0072479 that are filed on June 4, 2021. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application(s). Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2024 is in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 8, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Non-Functional Language:
Regarding Claims 1 and 16: The phrase which recites “wherein the first terminal is located within the blockchain network system and is associated with a token specifying the transportation device, wherein the first terminal is further associated with a certification that the third terminal is associated with performing trading, distribution, or repair of the transportation device as a proxy”, found in claims 1 and 16, is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, details about the first terminal (e.g., where the terminal is located, what the terminal is associated with, etc.). However, the fact that the first terminal has these particular attributes fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed.
These non-functional phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112The 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.
Claim 2-7 and 14-15 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 Claim 2: Claim 2 recites the limitation “the token” as in “generate, when transmission of cryptocurrency at a price corresponding to the token to a pre-designated contract account is confirmed, a smart contract, as an official recordation and recognition of change of an owner of the transportation device, compliant with a rule specifying to record change of the owner of the transportation device through change of a holder of the token by transferring the token to a node of an entity that has transmitted the cryptocurrency in the blockchain network system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon, describes two different tokens, “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned. Accordingly, it is unclear which token “the token” in claim 2 is referencing. As best understood, all references to “the token” in claim 2 are referencing “the token specifying the transportation device.” In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner. Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation “the entity holding the token” as in “generate, in the blockchain network system, a smart contract compliant with a rule specifying to additionally issue a token based on the information disclosure request by the entity holding the token.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because the claim(s) never describe any entity as “holding” the token. Rather, claim 1 describes “a first terminal of an entity” that “is associated with a token specifying the transportation device.” Claim 1 also describes transmitting the “token specifying the transportation device” to a node managed by the second terminal (i.e., the second terminal of an entity, e.g., a second entity). As best understood, “the entity holding the token” would be the entity associated with the first terminal and associated with the token specifying the transportation device. In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner.
Regarding Claim 4: Claim 4 recites the limitation “the token” as in “wherein the smart contract includes a digital instruction compliant with a rule specifying to enable movement of the token only when the owner of the transportation device is changed.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claims 1 and 2, which claim 4 depends upon, describe at least two different tokens (e.g., “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned). In view of the different tokens recited in the claim(s), it is unclear which token “the token” in claim 4 is referencing. As best understood, “the token” in claim 4 is referring to “the token specifying the transportation device.” In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner.
Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation “the token” as in “generate, in the blockchain network system, a smart contract compliant with a rule specifying to burn a preconfigured number of tokens as a predetermined period elapses after the token is generated.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claim 1, which claim 5 depends upon, describes two different tokens, “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned, however neither of these tokens is explicitly “generated”. In view of these discrepancies, it is unclear which token “the token” in claim 5 is referencing. As best understood, “the token” in claim 5 is referring to “the token specifying the transportation device.” In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation “the token” as in “where x is a constant predetermined based on the information of the transportation device recorded at the time of issuing the token.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claims 1 and 5, which claim 6 depends upon, describe at least two different tokens (e.g., “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned). Examiner notes that claims 1, 5, and 6 all fail to explicitly indicate that the “token specifying the transportation device” is issued. Furthermore, the only “issued” token described in the claims is the token that is [potentially] issued based on the price difference between the price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device and the recalculated price of the transportation device, however this token may only be issued in certain situations (i.e., indicated by the fact that a token is issued or burned). In view of these discrepancies, it is unclear which token “the token” in claim 6 is referencing. As best understood, “the token” in claim 6 is referring to “the token specifying the transportation device.” In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner.
Regarding Claim 7: Claim 7 recites the limitation “the token” as in “The service server of claim 5, wherein the smart contract includes a digital instruction compliant with a rule specifying to burn the token in a form of an exponentially decreasing function, a logarithmically decreasing function, or an n-th order decreasing function when the predetermined period elapses.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claims 1 and 5, which claim 7 depends upon, describe at least three different tokens or token groups. Specifically, claim 1 has “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned on the blockchain network system based on a price difference. In addition, claim 5 has “a preconfigured number of tokens” that are burned after a predetermined period of time. In view of these different tokens/token groups, it is unclear which of these tokens, if any, should be specified in the token burning rule recited in claim 7.
The lack of antecedent basis also makes it unclear whether the scope of claim 7 comprises, or is supposed to comprise, burning a single token based on one of the various decreasing functions or if the scope of claim 7 comprises, or is supposed to comprise, burning varying quantities of tokens (e.g., multiple tokens) based on the various decreasing functions. Applicant’s disclosure appears to contemplate burning a single token and a plurality of tokens (See e.g., Specification p. 24 lines 4-9 which recite “The fourth smart contract may include a digital instruction compliant with a rule specifying to burn a token in the form of an exponentially decreasing function, a logarithmically decreasing function, or an n-th order decreasing function when a predetermined period elapses. According to the process above, depreciation of the value of a transportation device may be compensated by burning part of issued tokens as time passes before the manufactured transportation device reaches an end consumer.”).
As best understood, the claimed invention comprises a single token (i.e., a token specifying the transportation device) that represents the transportation device, or the ownership of the transportation device, and a plurality of tokens that represent the price of the transportation device. Accordingly, it appears that when the claim(s) refer to the issuing and/or burning of tokens the claim(s) are referring to adjusting the number of tokens that represent the price of the transportation device. In order to further prosecution the claims have been interpreted in this manner.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites the limitation “the token” as in “freeze or burn the token based on the loss information or the disposal information of the transportation device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis also makes the claim unclear because claim 1, which claim 14 depends upon, describes at least two different tokens (e.g., “a token specifying the transportation device” and a token that is issued or burned). In view of the different tokens recited in the claim(s), it is unclear which token “the token” in claim 14 is referencing. As best understood, “the token” in claim 14 is referring to “the token specifying the transportation device.” In order to further prosecution, the claims have been interpreted in this manner. Claim 15, which depends upon claim 14, also recites the limitation “the token”, accordingly claim 15 may need corresponding amendments to maintain continuity of claim terms. Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claim 14.
Examiner encourages applicant to review all of the claims and to amend the claims, where necessary, to clarify the relationship between the various tokens and to clarify what the various tokens are supposed to represent. Since the claimed invention has various types of tokens, it is critically important to utilize the same name/terminology of the respective tokens throughout the claimed invention.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that the claims 1-15 are directed to the statutory category of a machine and claim 16 is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A service server providing services to a platform providing a tracking service for a transportation device based on a blockchain network system, the service server comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory operatively coupled with the at least one processor and comprising computer readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of:
receiving an information disclosure request for trading of the transportation device from a first terminal of an entity or a third terminal of an organization, wherein the first terminal is located within the blockchain network system and is associated with a token specifying the transportation device, wherein the first terminal is further associated with a certification that the third terminal is associated with performing trading, distribution, or repair of the transportation device as a proxy;
disclosing information on the transportation device to the platform providing the tracking service based on the information disclosure request;
receiving, from a second terminal of an entity purchasing the transportation device, transmission information on currency at a price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device; and
transmitting the token specifying the transportation device, on the blockchain network system, to a node of the blockchain network system that is a node managed by the second terminal and transferring the currency to an account managed by the first terminal based on verification of the transmission information,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive inspection information on a result of inspecting the transportation device from the third terminal, wherein the inspection information includes recalculated price of the transportation device; and
additionally issue or burn a token on the blockchain network system, based on a difference between the price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device and the recalculated price of the transportation device.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of collecting and providing information (e.g., an information disclosure request, information on the transportation device, inspection information) on a product (e.g., a transportation device), transferring ownership of the product (i.e., by exchanging the token specifying the transportation device for currency), and modifying (e.g., by issuing or burning) a representation of value based on an evaluation/inspection of the product. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic practice (e.g., property sales, property evaluation), and/or a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., sales activities), and/or managing interactions between people (e.g., between a buyer, a seller, a broker, a service provider, etc.). The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., a blockchain environment, a transportation environment, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a service server, at least one memory, at least on processor, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
As indicated in the “Claim Interpretation” section seen above, claims 1 and 16 contain non-functional language describing details about the first terminal (e.g., where the terminal is located, what the terminal is associated with, etc.). These non-functional limitations fail to limit the scope of the claimed invention, accordingly they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Beyond these non-functional phrases/limitations, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a service server comprising at least one processor and at least one memory operatively coupled with the at least one processor and comprising computer readable instructions; and a blockchain network system. Similarly, claim 16 recites the additional elements of: a service server; and a blockchain network system. The service server, processors, memory and the blockchain network system are all recited at a high-level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component and/or to apply the exception in a particular “blockchain” environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims’ use of the service server and/or the blockchain network system does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components (See e.g., Specification p. 14 line 25 – p. 15 line 6; p. 21 lines 7-10; p. 36 lines 10-24), i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the computing components in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the computing components, or another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, these 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a service server, a blockchain network system, a memory, a processor, etc.) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and/or system cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-15 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 11 and 13 recite an additional abstract idea of generating a contract that comprises various rules associated with the product (e.g., transportation device). This concept/abstract idea falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic practice (e.g., contract generation) and/or a commercial or legal interaction. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 refines the abstract idea of generating a contract that comprises various rules by describing when the contract would be activated/utilized. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 refines the abstract idea of generating a contract that comprises various rules by describing a particular rule in the generated contract. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further refines the abstract idea by describing which entities/devices receive payment (e.g., a currency payment) as part of the sale/exchange. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further refines the abstract idea by describing which entities/devices receive payment (e.g., a cryptocurrency payment) as part of the sale/exchange. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further refines the abstract idea by describing which entities/devices receive payment (e.g., a cryptocurrency payment). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 further refines the abstract idea by describing additional data that is collected about the product (e.g., transportation device) and subsequently paying/rewarding an entity for the additional data. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further refines the abstract idea by describing additional data that is collected about the product (e.g., transportation device) and subsequently adjusting the representation of value (i.e., the token(s)) based on the collected data. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 further refines the abstract idea by requesting additional data about the product (e.g., transportation device), adjusting the representation of value (i.e., the token(s)) based on the additional data, and rewarding an entity/device for requesting the additional data. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Wang et al. (US 2021/0133713 A1) discloses where an information disclosure request (i.e. issue request, e.g., use-right issue request) for trading of the transportation device (i.e. asset, e.g., a vehicle) is received from a first terminal of an entity (i.e. from a terminal of an owner), said first terminal associated, in the blockchain network system, with a token specifying the transportation device, or a third terminal of an organization (i.e. a node executing the smart contract), a proxy designation for the token specifying the transportation device, and further associated, in the blockchain network system, with a certification that the third terminal is associated with performing trading, distribution, or repair of the transportation device as a proxy. Wang [0031]; [0034]; [0037]. Wang discloses disclosing information on the transportation device to the platform providing the tracking service based on the information disclosure request. Wang [0031]. Wang discloses receiving, from a second terminal of an entity purchasing the transportation device, transmission information on currency at a price corresponding to the token (i.e., “the purchaser also can input the transaction amount”). Wang [0034]; [0038]; Fig. 4. Wang further discloses transmitting the token, on the blockchain network system, to a node of the blockchain network system that is to a node managed by the second terminal and transferring the currency to an account managed by the first terminal based on verification of the transmission information. Wang [0034]; [0038-0039]; Fig. 4. Wang differs, in part, from the claimed invention because Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving inspection information on a result of inspecting the transportation device from the third terminal, wherein the inspection information includes recalculated price of the transportation device, and issuing or burning a token on the blockchain network system, based on a difference between the price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device and the recalculated price of the transportation device.
Kim et al. (US 2021/0142378 A1) discloses a method for trading in used bicycles through objective verification of the used bicycles. Kim [0005]. Kim discloses where a system receives member information and bicycle information entered by the seller and member information entered by the buyer. Kim indicates that an appraiser verifies the bicycle (e.g., by performing non-destructive testing on the inside of the bicycle frame), and then the system computes a reasonable asking price for the bicycle based on the appraisal. Kim [0011].
Yantis et al. (US 2022/0058633 A1) discloses that a smart contract provides a set of verifiable conditions that must be satisfied in order to self-execute a transaction (e.g., transfer of ownership or expiration). Yantis [0843]. Yantis indicates that a token may be associated with a smart contract, and that a smart contract may define the conditions that must be verified to generate new tokens, conditions that must be verified in order to transfer ownership of tokens, conditions that must be verified to redeem a token, and/or conditions that must be met to destroy (i.e. burn) a token. Yantis [0843]. A smart contract may also contain code that defines actions to be taken when certain conditions are met. Yantis [0843]. Accordingly, while Yantis teaches that it was known in the art to issue tokens based on certain conditions, Yantis fails to disclose issuing or burning a token based on the specific parameters identified in claim 1 and 16 (i.e., based on a difference between the price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device and the recalculated price of the transportation device).
Konda et al. (US 2018/0189753 A1) discloses a system configured for analyzing transactions between two or more parties and creating (i.e. issuing) a digital token (also referred to as a hash), which can include processed and summarized information related to the transaction, to represent the evidence (or other information) associated with the transaction and store the token in a distributed ledger. Konda [0020].
Loh et al. (KR 10-2020-0018893), a reference cited as Foreign Patent Document #11 on the 7/8/2024 IDS, discloses where an asset transaction system evaluates the value of an asset and produces the evaluated price, issues a token corresponding to the evaluated price, and manages right and allocation of the token. Loh also discloses the mediating of the sale of the token. Loh Abstract. Accordingly, while Loh teaches that it was known in the art to evaluate an asset and issue a token based on the evaluation, Loh fails to disclose issuing or burning a token based on the specific parameters identified in claim 1 and 16 (i.e., based on a difference between the price corresponding to the token specifying the transportation device and the recalculated price of the transportation device).
Stephens et al. (US 2022/0358450 A1) discloses where one or more token smart contracts can control how ownership of a token is decided and/or transferred. For instance, the one or more token smart contracts can indicate an initial owner of the token and/or can identify conditions under which ownership automatically transfers, for instance an offer meeting or exceeding an owner-mutable threshold amount. The one or more token smart contracts can indicate conditions under which the token can be rented out or licensed out for use by licensee users/players, for instance an offer meeting or exceeding an owner-mutable threshold amount. The one or more token smart contracts can control conditions under which the token can be burnt, or irreversibly destroyed and/or unlisted. Stephens [0071].
Novel/Non-obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has performed a thorough search of the prior art based on the claimed subject matter, and is unable to find prior art, that either individually or in reasonable combination with other prior art, discloses, suggests, teaches, or renders obvious the particular combination of steps or elements as currently recited in independent claims 1 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 December 11, 2025
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698