DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant's Amendment filed on November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 11 were amended. Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1, a method of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, wherein the method comprises: receiving, using a communication, a request for purchasing the assets from at least one user associated with at least one user; transmitting, using the communication, an asset data of a number of assets available to be pre-sold to the at least one user to the at least one user, wherein the asset data further comprises a time period of a presale of the number of assets; receiving, using the communication, at least one selection of at least one asset from the number of assets from the at least one user; receiving, using the communication, one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user from one or more for authenticating the at least one user, wherein the one or more embodied characteristics comprises one or more biometric variables; communicating, using the communication, with one or more contextual variables, wherein the one or more contextual variables comprises time associated with the at least one user, wherein the one or more comprises a time; generating, using a processing, at least one purchase order for the at least one user based on the at least one selection of the at least one asset, wherein the at least one purchase order comprises at least one price information associated with at least one price of the at least one asset and at least one prompt requesting at least one payment for the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one purchase order is initiated based on a input received from the at least one user, wherein the input is effective for the initiating of the generating of the at least one purchase order based on the authenticating of the at least one user, wherein the generating of the at least one purchase order is further initiated based on the time associated with the at least one user; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one purchase order to the at least one user; receiving, using the communication, at least one user payment data for the at least one payment of the at least one asset from the at least one user; processing, using the processing, a transaction for the at least one asset using the at least one user payment data and the at least one purchase order; generating, using the processing, at least one asset nonfungible token data corresponding to at least one asset nonfungible token of the at least one asset based on the processing, wherein the at least one asset nonfungible token guarantees the at least one user of the provisioning of the at least one asset before a launch date for a sale of the at least one asset; receiving, using the communication, a device identifier from the at least one user; analyzing, using the processing, the device identifier for generating a device authentication status, wherein the device authentication status authenticates at least one presentation comprised in the at least one user for displaying at least one media asset; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one asset nonfungible token data to the at least one user based on the device authentication status; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one asset nonfungible token to the at least one user; and using a storage, the at least one asset nonfungible token data to a ledger, wherein the at least one asset comprises at least one comprising, wherein a entity embodied in the at least one asset, wherein implements a challenge-response authentication to authenticate the at least one asset, wherein configured for generating at least one response based on interacting with at least one stimulus, wherein the at least one response corresponds to a defined output, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, using the communication, the at least one response, wherein the at least one response comprises at least one identifier associated with, wherein the receiving of the at least one response is performed after the receiving of the at least one selection of the at least one asset; retrieving, using the storage, at least one expected response corresponding to the at least one stimulus, expected from based on the at least one identifier; analyzing, using the processing, the at least one response and the at least one expected response, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the at least one response and the at least one expected response using at least one learning model, wherein the at least one learning model is trained for matching responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty; determining, using the processing, a degree of match between the at least one response and the at least one expected response based on the comparing, wherein the degree of match corresponds to the degree of certainty, wherein the degree of match is a level of confidence in an authenticity of the at least one asset: generating, using the processing, a result for the at least one asset based on the analyzing, wherein the generating of the result is further based on the determining the degree of match, wherein the result informs about the authenticity of the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one purchase order is performed after the generating of the result; and transmitting, using the communication, the result to the at least one user. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2, the method of claim 1 further comprising generating, using the processing, the at least one asset nonfungible token based on the processing and the at least one selection of the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token data is further based on the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token. Claim 5 -: 5, the method of claim 1 further comprises: receiving, using the communication, at least one first trading request for trading asset nonfungible tokens from at least one first user associated with at least one first user; initiating, using the processing, at least one trading session based on the at least one first trading request; identifying, using the processing, at least one first asset nonfungible token available to be traded by at least one second user based on the initiating and the at least one first trading request; retrieving, using the storage, at least one first asset nonfungible token data of the at least one first asset nonfungible token based on the identifying; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one first asset nonfungible token data to the at least one first user; receiving, using the communication, at least one trading order from the at least one first user, wherein the at least one trading order comprises at least one selection of at least one second asset nonfungible token from the at least one first asset nonfungible token and at least one first user payment data associated with the at least one first user; processing, using the processing, a transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token based on the at least one trading order; and transmitting, using the communication, the at least one second asset nonfungible token to the at least one first user. Claim 6 -: 6, the method of claim 5 further comprises: generating, using the processing, at least one trading data for the at least one trading session based on the processing of the transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token; and , using the storage, the at least one trading data of the at least one trading session in the ledger. Claim 7 -: 7, the method of claim 6 further comprises: retrieving, using the storage, at least one historic trading data associated with at least one historic trading session from the ledger, wherein the at least one historic trading data is associated with the trading of at least one of a plurality of asset nonfungible tokens; analyzing, using the processing, the at least one historic trading data using at least one first learning model; discovering, using the processing, an actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens based on the analyzing of the at least one historic trading data; and , using the storage, the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens. Claim 8 -: 8, the method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens comprises the at least one second asset nonfungible token, wherein the method further comprises analyzing, using the processing, the at least one trading data associated with the at least one trading session using the at least one first learning model, wherein the discovering of the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens is further based on the analyzing of the at least one trading data. Claim 9 -: 9, the method of claim 5 further comprises: receiving, using the communication, at least one second trading request for trading the asset nonfungible tokens from at least one second user associated with the at least one second user; generating, using the processing, at least one first prompt for acquiring the at least one first asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one first prompt to the at least one second user; and receiving, using the communication, at least one indication of the at least one first asset nonfungible token corresponding to the at least one first prompt from the at least one second user, wherein the identifying of the at least one first asset nonfungible token is further based on the at least one indication. Claim 10 -: 10, the method of claim 5 further comprises: generating, using the processing, at least one token acquiring prompt for the at least one second asset token based on the generating of the at least one trading order based on the at least one trading order; transmitting, using the communication, the at least one token acquiring prompt to the at least one second user; and receiving, using the communication, the at least one second asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 11 -: 11, a system for facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, the system comprising: a communication configured for: receiving a request for purchasing the assets from at least one user associated with at least one user; transmitting an asset data of a number of assets available to be pre-sold to the at least one user to the at least one user, wherein the asset data further comprises a time period of a presale of the number of assets; receiving one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user from one or more for authenticating the at least one user, wherein the one or more embodied characteristics comprises one or more biometric variables; communicating with one or more contextual variables, wherein the one or more contextual variables comprises time associated with the at least one user, wherein the one or more comprises a time; receiving at least one selection of at least one asset from the number of assets from the at least one user; transmitting at least one purchase order to the at least one user; receiving at least one user payment data for the at least one payment of the at least one asset from the at least one user; receiving a device identifier from the at least one user; transmitting at least one asset nonfungible token data to the at least one user based on a device authentication status; and transmitting at least one asset nonfungible token to the at least one user; a processing communicatively coupled with the communication, wherein the processing is configured for: generating the at least one purchase order for the at least one user based on the at least one selection of the at least one asset, wherein the at least one purchase order comprises at least one price information associated with at least one price of the at least one asset and at least one prompt requesting at least one payment for the at least one asset, wherein the generating... [id. at 1], processing a transaction for the at least one asset using the at least one user payment data and the at least one purchase order; generating the at least one asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the at least one asset nonfungible token of the at least one asset based on the processing, wherein the at least one asset nonfungible token guarantees the at least one user of the provisioning of the at least one asset before a launch date for a sale of the at least one asset; and analyzing the device identifier for generating the device authentication status,wherein the device authentication status authenticates at least one presentation comprised in the at least one user for displaying at least one media asset; and a storage communicatively coupled with the processing, wherein the storage is configured for the at least one asset nonfungible token data to a ledger, wherein the at least one asset comprises at least one comprising, wherein a entity embodied in the at least one asset, wherein implements a challenge-response authentication to authenticate the at least one asset, wherein configured for generating at least one response based on interacting with at least one stimulus, wherein the at least one response corresponds to a defined output, wherein the communication is further configured for: receiving the at least one response, wherein the at least one response comprises at least one identifier associated with, wherein the receiving of the at least one response is performed after the receiving of the at least one selection of the at least one asset; and transmitting a result to the at least one user, wherein the storage is further configured for retrieving at least one expected response corresponding to the at least one stimulus, expected from based on the at least one identifier, wherein the processing is further configured for; analyzing the at least one response and the at least one expected response, wherein the analyzing... [id. at 1], determining a degree of match between the at least one response and the at least one expected response based on the comparing, wherein the degree of match corresponds to the degree of certainty. wherein the degree of match is a level of confidence in an authenticity of the at least one asset; and generating the result for the at least one asset based on the analyzing, wherein the generating the result is further based on the determining of the degree of match, wherein the result informs about the authenticity of the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one purchase order is performed after the generating of the result. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 12 -: 12, the system of claim 11, wherein the processing is further configured for generating the at least one asset nonfungible token based on the processing and the at least one selection of the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token data is further based on the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token. Claim 15 -: 15, the system of claim 11, wherein the communication is further configured for: receiving at least one first trading request for trading asset nonfungible tokens from at least one first user associated with at least one first user; transmitting at least one first asset nonfungible token data to the at least one first user; receiving at least one trading order from the at least one first user, wherein the at least one trading order comprises at least one selection of at least one second asset nonfungible token from at least one first asset nonfungible token and at least one first user payment data associated with the at least one first user; and transmitting the at least one second asset nonfungible token to the at least one first user, wherein the processing is further configured for: initiating at least one trading session based on the at least one first trading request; identifying the at least one first asset nonfungible token available to be traded by at least one second user based on the initiating and the at least one first trading request; and processing a transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token based on the at least one trading order, wherein the storage is further configured for retrieving the at least one first asset nonfungible token data of the at least one first asset nonfungible token based on the identifying. Claim 16 -: 16, the system of claim 15, wherein the processing is further configured for generating at least one trading data for the at least one trading session based on the processing of the transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token, wherein the storage is further configured for the at least one trading data of the at least one trading session in the ledger. Claim 17 -: 17, the system of claim 16, wherein the storage is further configured for: retrieving at least one historic trading data associated with at least one historic trading session from the ledger, wherein the at least one historic trading data is associated with the trading of at least one of a plurality of asset nonfungible tokens; and an actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens, wherein the processing is further configured for: analyzing the at least one historic trading data using at least one first learning model; and discovering the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens based on the analyzing of the at least one historic trading data. Claim 18 -: 18, the system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens comprises the at least one second asset nonfungible token, wherein the processing is further configured for analyzing the at least one trading data associated with the at least one trading session using the at least one first learning model, wherein the discovering of the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens is further based on the analyzing of the at least one trading data. Claim 19 -: 19, the system of claim 15, wherein the communication is further configured for: receiving at least one second trading request for trading the asset nonfungible tokens from at least one second user associated with the at least one second user; transmitting at least one first prompt to the at least one second user; and receiving at least one indication of the at least one first asset nonfungible token corresponding to the at least one first prompt from the at least one second user, wherein the identifying of the at least one first asset nonfungible token is further based on the at least one indication, wherein the processing is further configured for generating the at least one first prompt for acquiring the at least one first asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user. Claim 20 -: 20, the system of claim 15, wherein the processing is further configured for generating at least one token acquiring prompt for the at least one second asset token based on the generating of the at least one trading order based on the at least one trading order, wherein the communication is further configured for: transmitting the at least one token acquiring prompt to the at least one second user; and receiving the at least one second asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: methods, systems, apparatuses, and devices of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1 and 11 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 11.
Claim 1 (as amended): Particularly pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 1 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes an additional element of "communication device", "user device", "biometric sensors", "one or more sensors associated with one or more", "the one or more sensors", "real time clock", "processing device", "control input", "presentation device", "multimedia asset", "storing", "storage device", "distributed ledger", "tangible object", "at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device", "the at least one PUF device", "physical entity", "physical stimulus". However, independent claim 1 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "communication device", "user device", "biometric sensors", "one or more sensors associated with one or more", "the one or more sensors", "real time clock", "processing device", "control input", "presentation device", "multimedia asset", "storing", "storage device", "distributed ledger", "tangible object", "at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device", "the at least one PUF device", "physical entity", "physical stimulus" of independent claim 1 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method of facilitating preselling … wherein the method comprises", "receiving, using a communication device, … at least one user", "transmitting, using the communication device, … the number of assets", "receiving, using the communication device, … least one user device", "receiving, using the communication device, … or more biometric variables", "communicating, using the communication device, … a real time clock", "generating, using a processing device, … at least one asset", "wherein the generating of the … least one user device", "transmitting, using the communication device, … least one user device", "receiving, using the communication device, … least one user device", "processing, using the processing device, … least one purchase order", "generating, using the processing device, … at least one asset", "receiving, using the communication device, … least one user device", "analyzing, using the processing device, … least one multimedia asset", "transmitting, using the communication device, … the device authentication status", "transmitting, using the communication device, … one user device; and", "storing, using a storage device, … at least one asset", "wherein the at least one … the method further comprises", "receiving, using the communication device, … at least one asset", "retrieving, using the storage device, … at least one identifier", "analyzing, using the processing device, … least one expected response", "wherein the analyzing comprises comparing … a degree of certainty", "determining, using the processing device, … at least one asset", "generating, using the processing device, … of the result; and" and "transmitting, using the communication device, … least one user device") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] 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) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "storing, using a storage device, … at least one asset", "retrieving, using the storage device, … at least one identifier" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method step comprises or includes: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "storing, using a storage device, … at least one asset", "retrieving, using the storage device, … at least one identifier", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (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), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 11 (as amended): Specifically regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 11 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes an additional element of "communication device", "user device", "biometric sensors", "one or more sensors associated with one or more", "the one or more sensors", "real time clock", "processing device", "control input", "presentation device", "multimedia asset", "storage device", "storing", "distributed ledger", "tangible object", "at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device", "the at least one PUF device", "physical entity", "physical stimulus". However, independent claim 11 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "communication device", "user device", "biometric sensors", "one or more sensors associated with one or more", "the one or more sensors", "real time clock", "processing device", "control input", "presentation device", "multimedia asset", "storage device", "storing", "distributed ledger", "tangible object", "at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device", "the at least one PUF device", "physical entity", "physical stimulus" of independent claim 11 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a system for facilitating preselling … tokens, the system comprising", "a communication device configured for", "receiving a request for purchasing … at least one user", "transmitting an asset data of … the number of assets", "receiving one or more embodied … or more biometric variables", "communicating with one or more … a real time clock", "receiving at least one selection … least one user device", "transmitting at least one purchase … least one user device", "receiving at least one user … least one user device", "receiving a device identifier from … least one user device", "transmitting at least one asset … device authentication status; and", "transmitting at least one asset … least one user device", "a processing device communicatively coupled … device is configured for", "generating the at least one … at least one asset", "wherein the generating of the … least one user device", "processing a transaction for the … least one purchase order", "generating the at least one … least one asset; and", "analyzing the device identifier for … one multimedia asset; and", "a storage device communicatively coupled … unclonable function (PUF) device", "wherein the at least one … is further configured for", "receiving the at least one … least one asset; and", "transmitting a result to the … is further configured for", "analyzing the at least one … least one expected response", "wherein the analyzing comprises comparing … a degree of certainty", "determining a degree of match … least one asset; and" and "generating the result for the … generating of the result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] 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) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a storage device communicatively coupled … unclonable function (PUF) device" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. Furthermore, the additional method step comprises or includes: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a storage device communicatively coupled … unclonable function (PUF) device", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 1 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 11 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1 and 11 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, and 15-20 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 adds an additional method step of "2. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating, using the processing device, the … further based on the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 2 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds additional method steps of "5. The method of claim 1 further comprises", "receiving, using the communication device, at least one first trading request for trading asset … at least one first user device associated with at least one first user", "initiating, using the processing device, at least one trading session based on the at least one first trading request", "identifying, using the processing device, at least one first asset nonfungible token available to … user based on the initiating and the at least one first trading request", "retrieving, using the storage device, at least one first asset nonfungible token data of the at least one first asset nonfungible token based on the identifying", "transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one first asset nonfungible token data to the at least one first user device", "receiving, using the communication device, at least one trading order from the at least … one first user payment data associated with the at least one first user", "processing, using the processing device, a transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token based on the at least one trading order; and", "transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one second asset nonfungible token to the at least one first user device". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 5 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6: Dependent claim 6 adds an additional method step of "6. The method of claim 5 further comprises", "generating, using the processing device, at least one trading data for the at least … of the transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token; and", "storing, using the storage device, the at least one trading data of the at least one trading session in the distributed ledger". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 6 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 adds an additional method step of "7. The method of claim 6 further comprises", "retrieving, using the storage device, at least one historic trading data associated with at … the trading of at least one of a plurality of asset nonfungible tokens", "analyzing, using the processing device, the at least one historic trading data using at least one first machine learning model", "discovering, using the processing device, an actual price for at least one of the … based on the analyzing of the at least one historic trading data; and", "storing, using the storage device, the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 7 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8: Dependent claim 8 adds an additional method step of "8. The method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens comprises … is further based on the analyzing of the at least one trading data". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 8 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 adds an additional method step of "9. The method of claim 5 further comprises", "receiving, using the communication device, at least one second trading request for trading the … least one second user device associated with the at least one second user", "generating, using the processing device, at least one first prompt for acquiring the at least one first asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user", "transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one first prompt to the at least one second user device; and", "receiving, using the communication device, at least one indication of the at least one … first asset nonfungible token is further based on the at least one indication". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 9 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 adds an additional method step of "10. The method of claim 5 further comprises", "generating, using the processing device, at least one token acquiring prompt for the at … at least one trading order based on the at least one trading order", "transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one token acquiring prompt to the at least one second user device; and", "receiving, using the communication device, the at least one second asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 10 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds an additional method step of "12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processing device is further configured for … further based on the generating of the at least one asset nonfungible token". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 12 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Dependent claim 15 adds additional method steps of "15. The system of claim 11, wherein the communication device is further configured for", "receiving at least one first trading request for trading asset nonfungible tokens from at least one first user device associated with at least one first user", "transmitting at least one first asset nonfungible token data to the at least one first user device", "receiving at least one trading order from the at least one first user device, … first user payment data associated with the at least one first user; and", "transmitting the at least one second asset nonfungible token to the at least one first user device, wherein the processing device is further configured for", "initiating at least one trading session based on the at least one first trading request", "identifying the at least one first asset nonfungible token available to be traded by … based on the initiating and the at least one first trading request; and", "processing a transaction for the at least one second asset nonfungible token based on … of the at least one first asset nonfungible token based on the identifying". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 15 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 adds an additional method step of "16. The system of claim 15, wherein the processing device is further configured for … trading data of the at least one trading session in the distributed ledger". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17: Dependent claim 17 adds an additional method step of "17. The system of claim 16, wherein the storage device is further configured for", "retrieving at least one historic trading data associated with at least one historic trading … trading of at least one of a plurality of asset nonfungible tokens; and", "storing an actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens, wherein the processing device is further configured for", "analyzing the at least one historic trading data using at least one first machine learning model; and", "discovering the actual price for at least one of the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens based on the analyzing of the at least one historic trading data". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 17 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18: Dependent claim 18 adds an additional method step of "18. The system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of asset nonfungible tokens comprises … is further based on the analyzing of the at least one trading data". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 18 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19: Dependent claim 19 adds an additional method step of "19. The system of claim 15, wherein the communication device is further configured for", "receiving at least one second trading request for trading the asset nonfungible tokens from … least one second user device associated with the at least one second user", "transmitting at least one first prompt to the at least one second user device; and", "receiving at least one indication of the at least one first asset nonfungible token … least one first asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 19 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20: Dependent claim 20 adds an additional method step of "20. The system of claim 15, wherein the processing device is further configured for … at least one trading order, wherein the communication device is further configured for", "transmitting the at least one token acquiring prompt to the at least one second user device; and", "receiving the at least one second asset nonfungible token from the at least one second user device". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 20 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 2 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 20 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted November 28, 2025 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed August 29, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the August 29, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"[T]he currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite [amended claim language]. Support for this amendment is present in para [0056], para [0109], para [0037], para [0120], para [0055], para [0121], and para [0030] of the specification [.]
'The applicant submits that the limitation "communicating, using the communication device, with one or more sensors associated with one or more contextual variables, wherein the one or more contextual variables comprises time associated with the at least one user device, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a real time clock", of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, recites operations of communicating with the one or more sensors which includes a real time clock to read the time associated with the at least one user device. The applicant submits that the operation of communicating with the one or more sensors which includes the real time clock to read the time associated with the at least one user device cannot be construed as mental processes, because the communication with the one or more sensors which includes the real time clock to read the time associated with the at least one user device is not a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind, but a device-level operation executed by the communication device and the real time clock.
'The applicant submits that the limitations "receiving, using the communication device, a device identifier from the at least one user device;" and "analyzing, using the processing device, the device identifier for generating a device authentication status, wherein the device authentication status authenticates at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device for displaying at least one multimedia asset", of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, recite operation of authenticating at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device for displaying the at least one multimedia asset by analyzing the device identifier received from the at least one user device. These limitations describe receiving the device identifier by the communication device and analyzing that device identifier with the processing device to generate the device authentication status. The applicant submits that the operation of authenticating the at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device for displaying the at least one multimedia asset by analyzing the device identifier received from the at least one user device cannot be construed as mental process, because the generating of the device authentication status from the device identifier is not a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind, but a technical operation performed by the communication device and the processing device acting on device identifiers.
'The applicant submits that the limitations "wherein the at least one asset comprises at least one tangible object comprising at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device" and "wherein the at least one PUF device is configured for generating at least one response based on interacting with at least one physical stimulus to the at least one PUF device", of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, characterizes the at least one asset as including at least one tangible object, and the at least one tangible object as including the at least one PUF device, and recite an operation of generating the at least one response by the at least one PUF device based on the interaction of the at least one PUF device with the at least one physical stimulus. The applicant submits that the operation of the generating of the at least one response by the at least one PUF device which is comprised in the at least one tangible object, based on the interaction of the at least one PUF device with the at least one physical stimulus cannot be construed as the mental process, because the generating of the at least one response by the at least one PUF device which is comprised in the at least one tangible object, based on the interaction of the at least one PUF device with the at least one physical stimulus is not a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind but a device operation performable by the at least one PUF device which is comprised in the at least one tangible object.
'The applicant submits that the limitations "analyzing, using the processing device, the at least one response and the at least one expected response, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the at least one response and the at least one expected response using at least one machine learning model, wherein the at least one machine learning model is trained for matching responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty" and "determining, using the processing device, a degree of match between the at least one response and the at least one expected response based on the comparing, wherein the degree of match corresponds to the degree of certainty, wherein the degree of match is a level of confidence in an authenticity of the at least one asset," of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, recite specific machine-learning operations carried out by the processing device. In particular, these limitations require applying a trained machine learning model to responses generated by the at least one PUF device and corresponding expected responses of the at least one PUF device to produce a degree of match corresponding to a degree of certainty, and using that degree of match as a level of confidence in the authenticity of the at least one asset. The applicant submits that this analyzing and determining cannot be construed as a mental process, because applying a trained machine learning model to responses generated by the at least one PUF device and computing the degree of match which is the level of confidence in the authenticity of the at least one asset is not a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind, but a technical operation executed by the processing device using trained machine learning model.
'The applicant submits that the limitation "receiving, using the communication device, one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user from one or more biometric sensors for authenticating the at least one user, wherein the one or more embodied characteristics comprises one or more biometric variables" of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, recites operations of acquiring biometric variables from the one or more biometric sensors and using that biometric variables for authenticating the at least one user. In particular, this limitation requires that the communication device receive sensor output representing embodied characteristics unique to the user (biometric variables) and that such embodied characteristics be used in a computer-implemented authentication of the user. The applicant submits that this operation of authenticating the at least one user based on biometric variables from the one or more biometric sensors cannot be construed as a mental process, because the sensing of embodied characteristics and the computer-based use of the biometric variables for authentication is not a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind, but a device operation performed by the one or more biometric sensors, the communication device, and the processing devices.
'The applicant further submits that, in view of the limitations, "communicating, using the communication device, with one or more sensors associated with one or more contextual variables, wherein the one or more contextual variables comprises time associated with the at least one user device, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a real time clock", "receiving, using the communication device, a device identifier from the at least one user device;" and "analyzing, using the processing device, the device identifier for generating a device authentication status, wherein the device authentication status authenticates at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device for displaying at least one multimedia asset", "wherein the at least one asset comprises at least one tangible object comprising at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device", "wherein the at least one PUF device is configured for generating at least one response based on interacting with at least one physical stimulus to the at least one PUF device", "analyzing, using the processing device, the at least one response and the at least one expected response, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the at least one response and the at least one expected response using at least one machine learning model, wherein the at least one machine learning model is trained for matching responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty", "determining, using the processing device, a degree of match between the at least one response and the at least one expected response based on the comparing, wherein the degree of match corresponds to the degree of certainty, wherein the degree of match is a level of confidence in an authenticity of the at least one asset,", and "receiving, using the communication device, one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user from one or more biometric sensors for authenticating the at least one user, wherein the one or more embodied characteristics comprises one or more biometric variables", taken together, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 do not fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping in any meaningful sense. Although the preamble of the currently amended claims 1 and 11 refers to "facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens," the body of the currently amended claims 1 and 11 does not set forth fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Instead, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite configurations and/or operations of a tangible PUF- equipped asset, one or more biometric sensors, a processing device, a communication device, a storage device, a real time clock, a trained machine learning model, and a distributed ledger to authenticate the at least one asset, the at least one user, and the at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device and to enforce a presale time period before generating the at least one asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the at least one asset nonfungible token.
"[T]he applicant submits that under Step 2A, Prong 1, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 do not recite a mental process and are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
'Even assuming arguendo that claims 1 and 11 do recite a judicial exception, which the Applicant disputes, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 are nevertheless patent eligible in light of the Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Revised Guidance") because the currently amended claims 1 and 11 integrate any alleged judicial exception into the practical application.
"The applicant submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 expressly require the use of specific physical devices (i.e., the at least one PUF device, the one or more biometric sensors, the real time clock, the at least one presentation device, the processing device, and the communication device).
"The at least one PUF device, which is a non generic device, is comprised in the at least one asset which includes at least one tangible object. Further, the at least one PUF device implements a challenge-response authentication to authenticate the at least one asset, which includes the at least one tangible object comprising the at least one PUF device, and is configured for generating the at least one response based on the interaction with the at least one physical stimulus.
"The one or more biometric sensors, which are generic devices, provide the one or more biometric variables to authenticate the at least one user.
"The real time clock, which is comprised in the one or more sensors, is a non generic device. [T]he real time clock provides the time associated with the at least one user device for enforcing a time period for the presale of the number of assets.
"The at least one presentation device, which is comprised in the at least one user device, is a non generic device. [T]he at least one presentation device is authenticated by generating the authentication status by analyzing the device identifier received from the at least one user device.
"The processing device performs machine learning based analysis of the at least one response generated by the at least one PUF device and the at least one expected response associated with the at least one PUF device to determine a degree of match corresponding to a level of confidence in the authenticity of the at least one asset. [T]he processing device analyzes the device identifier to generate the device authentication status for authenticating the at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device. Further, the processing device further generates the at least one purchase order, and the generating of the at least one purchase order is initiated after the at least one user is authenticated, and based on the time associated with the at least one user device.
"The communication device transmits the at least one asset nonfungible token data based on the device authentication status.
"The applicant further submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 require physical devices, namely the at least one PUF device, the one or more biometric sensors, the real time clock, the at least one presentation device, the processing device, and the communication device, so [] the claims are eligible under section 35 USC101.
"The applicant further submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements (i.e., the at least one PUF device, the one or more biometric sensors, the real time clock, the at least one presentation device, the processing device, at least one machine learning model, and the communication device).
'The applicant submits that these additional elements are not recited as generic computing infrastructure merely "configured to" implement an abstract idea. [T]hey are recited in a particular configuration in which the at least one PUF device embodied in the at least one tangible object generates at least one response that corresponds to a physically defined output, by interacting with at least one physical stimulus. [T]he at least one machine learning model is specifically trained for matching responses generated by the at least one PUF device and expected responses of the at least one PUF device with a degree of certainty, and for providing a level of confidence in the authenticity of the at least one asset. Further, the one or more biometric sensors provide one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user (biometric variables) for authenticating the at least one user. [T]he processing device analyzes a device identifier to generate a device authentication status that authenticates the at least one presentation device configured to display the at least one multimedia asset. [T]he real time clock provides time that is used together with the time period of the presale included in the asset data to determine when preselling of the at least one asset is initiated.
"The applicant further submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite that these technical operations are used in determining when presale transactions and asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the asset nonfungible tokens are generated and provisioned. In particular, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite that generating the at least one purchase order is initiated based on authenticating the at least one user and is further initiated based on the time associated with the at least one user device, and that the generating of the at least one purchase order is performed after generating a result that informs about the authenticity of the at least one asset. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 further recite that the at least one asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the at least one asset nonfungible token is generated based on processing a transaction that uses the at least one purchase order, and that transmitting the at least one asset nonfungible token data to the at least one user device is based on the device authentication status. [I]n operation, the authenticity result for the asset, the authentication of the user, the use of time associated with the user device (as obtained from the real time clock) in relation to the presale time period, and the authentication of the presentation device are all used in the control flow that governs when a purchase order is generated, a transaction is processed, asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is generated, and the asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is transmitted and stored. "
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 13-22).
However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require "the control flow that governs when a purchase order is generated, a transaction is processed, asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is generated, and the asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is transmitted and stored". The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"The applicant submits that this ordered arrangement of additional elements and corresponding operations constitutes an improvement in the technical field of secure, hardware-rooted authentication and token provisioning, and not in a method of organizing human activity. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 address a technical problem, namely assuring that nonfungible tokens are tied to authentic, unclonable physical assets and are provisioned in association with authenticated users and authenticated presentation devices during a defined presale time period. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 provide a technical solution to this technical problem by generating at least one response by the at least one PUF device upon interaction with at least one physical stimulus for authenticating the at least one asset, by using biometric variables provided by the one or more biometric sensors for authenticating the at least one user, by using the time provided by the real time clock together with the time period of the presale to control when preselling of the at least one asset is initiated, and by using the level of confidence in the authenticity of the at least one asset determined by comparing the at least one response and the at least one expected response using the at least one machine learning model as part of the overall flow that precedes generation and provisioning of the at least one asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the at least one asset nonfungible token.
"Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, such a use of any alleged judicial exception in conjunction with additional elements to effect a specific improvement in another technology or technical field is recognized as integrating the exception into a practical application. [T]he applicant submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 are not directed to the abstract idea, but to a concrete technological implementation that integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
'The applicant submits that when a claim sets forth "an improvement in the functioning of a computer," this is "indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical application" (2019 -º 101 Guidance, Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, 55; see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016), []).
"The applicant further submits that, in view of the 2019 -º 101 Guidance and McRO, the limitations recited in the currently amended claims 1 and 11 constitute additional elements that improve the functioning of computer-implemented authentication and token- provisioning technology and thereby integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. [T]he currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite, inter alia,[amended claim language].
'The applicant submits that these recited limitations define a specific computer- implemented technique for authenticating a tangible, PUF-equipped asset using a particular arrangement of hardware (the PUF device embodied in the tangible object, the communication device, the processing device, and the storage device) and software (the at least one machine learning model trained for matching responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty). The claim does not merely recite a result of "authenticating an asset" or "evaluating data," but requires the processing device to perform a defined sequence of operations: receiving a response generated by the PUF device, that includes an identifier, retrieving an expected response of the PUF device based on the identifier, comparing the response and the expected response using a trained machine learning model, determining a degree of match that corresponds to a degree of certainty, using that degree of match as a level of confidence in authenticity of the asset, and generating a result that informs about the authenticity of the asset, with the generating of the at least one purchase order being performed after the generating of this result. This is analogous, in the eligibility analysis, to the rule-based animation improvements in McRO, in that it sets forth a particular way for the processing device and associated components to operate that improves how the computer system performs asset authentication and controls subsequent token-related operations, rather than merely automating a mental judgment about authenticity. '
(REMARKS, pp. 23-25).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. With respect to the McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office ascertains that the legal holdings of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In taking into consideration the particular facts and the specific holdings of McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in McRO, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2A for methods regarding rules for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression animation of animated characters. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the specific facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are markedly dissimilar to the pertinent facts in McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America regarding McRO's holdings. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guidance). The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Contrastingly, the Applicant's alleged invention involves methods, systems, apparatuses, and devices of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, and the claims in this application are not directed to an improvement in computer-related technology, and recite concepts similar to previously identified abstract ideas as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the relevant substantive facts in the instant pending Application are materially dissimilar to the facts in McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America. Consequently, the Office finds that the legal holdings of McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"[T]he applicant submits that the limitation [amended claim language] as recited in the currently amended claims 1 and 11, is an additional element that provides a specific improvement in computer-implemented authentication of a PUF-equipped tangible asset and thereby has integrated any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
'The applicant further submits that in Enfish (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), Federal Circuit held that the claims satisfied -º 101 under Mayo/Alice because they recited a "specific improvement to the way computers operate," i.e., an improved database configuration that permitted faster and more efficient searching. (Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330-33, 1336, 1339). The applicant further submits that in Core Wireless (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the claims specified a "particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices" that "improve[d] the efficiency of using" the devices (Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362-63).
"The applicant further submits that, in view of the limitations of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 similarly recite a specific improvement in computer-implemented technology, namely, in secure, hardware-rooted authentication and token provisioning for tangible assets. In particular, the currently amended claims 1 and 11 require that the at least one asset comprises at least one tangible object including at least one physically unclonable function (PUF) device, wherein the at least one PUF device is a physical entity embodied in the at least one asset, implements a challenge- response authentication to authenticate the at least one asset, and is configured for generating at least one response corresponding to a physically defined output based on interaction with at least one physical stimulus to the at least one PUF device. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 further require analyzing, using the processing device, at least one response from the at least one PUF device and at least one expected response, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the at least one response and the at least one expected response using at least one machine learning model that is trained for matching responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty, determining, using the processing device, a degree of match corresponding to that degree of certainty as a level of confidence in an authenticity of the at least one asset, and generating, using the processing device, a result that informs about the authenticity of the at least one asset, wherein the generating of the at least one purchase order is performed after the generating of the result. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 also require receiving, using the communication device, one or more embodied characteristics unique to the at least one user from one or more biometric sensors as biometric variables for authenticating the at least one user, and that the generating of the at least one purchase order is initiated based on a control input received from the at least one user device that is effective for initiating generating the at least one purchase order based on authenticating the at least one user, and is further initiated based on the time associated with the at least one user device, wherein the time associated with the at least one user device is obtained by communicating with one or more sensors comprising a real time clock and the asset data includes a time period of the presale. [T]he currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite receiving, using the communication device, a device identifier from the at least one user device, analyzing, using the processing device, the device identifier to generate a device authentication status that authenticates at least one presentation device comprised in the at least one user device for displaying at least one multimedia asset, and transmitting, using the communication device, the at least one asset nonfungible token data to the at least one user device based on the device authentication status.
"The applicant submits that, taken together, these limitations do not merely use a generic computer to implement a business practice. [T]hey define a particular technical architecture and control flow in which a tangible PUF-equipped asset, at least one machine learning model operating on responses generated by the at least one PUF device and expected responses, one or more biometric sensors, a real time clock providing time associated with the at least one user device in relation to a time period of the presale, and device-identifier- based presentation device authentication, are all used in the control flow that governs when presale purchase orders are generated, when transactions are processed using the purchase order and user payment data, and when asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is generated based on the processing of the transaction and transmitted to the user device based on the device authentication status. Similar to Enfish and Core Wireless, the focus of the currently amended claims 1 and 11 is on a specific improvement in computer-implemented systems themselves which is an improved technique for securely binding nonfungible tokens to authenticated, unclonable physical assets and for provisioning such tokens in association with authenticated users and authenticated presentation devices during a presale time period included in the asset data rather than on an abstract idea implemented on conventional components.
"[I]n light of Enfish and Core Wireless, the applicant submits that the currently amended claims 1 and 11 recite a specific improvement in the functioning of computer-implemented authentication and token-provisioning technology. "
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 25-28).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Concerning the Enfish v. Microsoft court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In taking into consideration the particular facts and the specific holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Enfish, claim was found to be eligible in Step 2A for product regarding an improved information and storage system using a self-referential data table. Nevertheless, the particular facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are significantly contradistinctive from the material facts in Enfish v. Microsoft with respect to Enfish's holdings. The patentee in Enfish argued that its claimed self-referential table for a computer database was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court agreed with the patentee, based on its interpretation of the claim requiring a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements. The eligible claims in Enfish recited a self-referential database having two key features: all entity types can be stored in a single table; and the table rows can contain information defining the table columns. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1332, 118 USPQ2d at 1687. The features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology. In particular, they enabled the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337, 118 USPQ2d at 1690. Contrastingly, the Applicant's alleged invention involves methods, systems, apparatuses, and devices of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, and the features in the Applicant's pending claims are well-understood and conventional and/or are not considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the relevant substantive facts in the instant pending Application are materially dissimilar to the facts in Enfish v. Microsoft. Thus, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of Enfish v. Microsoft can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. Regarding the Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office ascertains that the legal holdings of Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In the process of considering the particular facts and the precise holdings of Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Core Wireless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a precedential decision finding claims to a software-related invention patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are not directed to an abstract idea and be deemed patent-eligible subject matter at the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis (Step 2A in the Office's Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis framework depicted in the above-illustrated § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes). In Core Wireless, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2A for products regarding improved user interface for mobile devices involving a graphical user interface for mobile devices that displays commonly accessed data on main menu. In Core Wireless, the claimed invention involves a graphical user interface (GUI) for mobile devices that displays an application summary of each application on the main menu while those applications are in an unlaunched state. However, the particular facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are considerably contradistinctive from the material facts in Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics regarding Core Wireless's holdings. In Core Wireless, the claims to computing devices were held patent eligible because the court concluded that they are directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices, not to the abstract idea of an index. In particular, in Core Wireless the claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, thus improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices. Contrasted thereto, the Applicant's alleged invention involves methods, systems, apparatuses, and devices of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, and the claims currently pending the Applicant's matter do not make any "non-abstract improvement to computer technology", are not directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices, do not contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it that results in improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices, but rather are directed to an abstract idea as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the material pertinent facts in the Applicant's pending matter are substantially dissimilar to the facts in Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics. Thus, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"The applicant further submits that the PTAB consistently held the position that claims reciting an improvement in technology are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. -º 101.
"[T]he claims are not directed to an abstract idea. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also MPEP @ 2106.05(a); Appeal Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 6-8. []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 28-29).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Concerning the DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In the process of considering the particular facts and the precise holdings of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in DDR Holdings, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2A for methods and system regarding expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites by matching website "look and feel". Notwithstanding the foregoing, the particular facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are markedly unlike the pertinent facts in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com with regard to DDR's holdings. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), provides an example of additional elements that favored eligibility because they were more than well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field. The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant. 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host's webpage to the third party's webpage when the hyperlink was activated. 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07. Thus, the claims in DDR Holdings were eligible. Contrasted thereto, the Applicant's alleged invention involves methods, systems, apparatuses, and devices of facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens, and the claims in the Applicant's pending matter do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims do not have additional elements that are more than what were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the relevant substantive facts in the instant pending Application are materially dissimilar to the facts in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com. Therefore, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
• The Applicant further argued:
"The applicant further submits that, even assuming arguendo that the Office Action has properly identified an alleged abstract idea, which the applicant respectfully disputes, the Office Action still errs under Step 2B in alleging that there is nothing in the currently amended claims 1 and 11 that adds significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
'The applicant respectfully submits that the combination of the limitations [] as recited in the currently amended claims 1 and 11, describes a non-conventional and non-generic way of authenticating a tangible asset and controlling subsequent token- related operations. In combination, these limitations do not merely represent an abstract idea of "comparing data" or "authenticating information," but instead set forth a specific sequence in which a PUF device embodied in a physical asset generates a physically defined response based on physical stimuli, the response and an expected response are processed by a trained machine learning model to determine a degree of match that corresponds to a degree of certainty and is used as a level of confidence in authenticity, and a result that informs about the authenticity of the asset is generated, with the generating of the at least one purchase order being expressly recited as being performed after this authenticity result is produced.
"The applicant further submits that this PUF-based and machine-learning-based authentication is not recited in isolation. The currently amended claims 1 and 11 also recite additional elements including [amended claim language.]
"The applicant submits that, taken as an ordered combination, these limitations describe a particular, non-generic architecture in which a tangible asset with a PUF device produces physically defined responses to physical stimuli; a trained machine learning model executing on the processing device generates a degree-of-match-based level of confidence in authenticity of the asset; biometric sensors provide embodied characteristics for authenticating the user; a real time clock provides time associated with the at least one user device in relation to a time period of the presale included in the asset data; the generating of the at least one purchase order is initiated based on authenticating the user and is further initiated based on this time, and is performed after generating the authenticity result; and a device identifier and device authentication status are used to authenticate a presentation device before transmitting asset nonfungible token data, with the asset nonfungible token data corresponding to the asset nonfungible tokens being generated based on processing a transaction that uses the at least one purchase order and then stored to a distributed ledger. This is not a generic implementation of the alleged abstract idea identified in the Office Action (i.e., facilitating preselling and provisioning of assets using nonfungible tokens) in a technological vacuum; it is a specific, discrete implementation that addresses concrete security and authenticity problems associated with binding nonfungible tokens to physical assets and controlling when and to which authenticated users and authenticated presentation devices those asset nonfungible tokens are provisioned.
"In the instant application, the Office Action does not identify any statement in the specification, any admission by the applicant, any court decision, or any prior-art publication demonstrating that the specific architecture and ordered combination now recited in the currently amended claims 1 and 11-namely, a tangible asset comprising a PUF device configured for challenge-response based on physical stimuli, the use of a machine learning model trained to match PUF responses and expected responses with a degree of certainty and to output a level of confidence in authenticity, biometric user authentication based on embodied characteristics, time-based initiation of purchase-order generation using a real time clock and a time period of the presale, device authentication based on a device identifier and a device authentication status of a presentation device, and the generation, transmission, and distributed ledger storage of asset nonfungible token data in accordance with these authentication and timing operations-was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant art at the time of filing. [T]he Office has generalized these limitations without any evidentiary support that this particular arrangement and interaction of elements was conventional.
"While alleging that the additional elements of the currently amended claims 1 and 11, taken alone or in ordered combination, amount to no more than implementing the alleged abstract idea on generic computer components. The Examiner has not met the evidentiary burden under Berkheimer to establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The applicant therefore submits that the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, represent significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and provide an inventive concept.
"[I]t is clear that the currently amended claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims thereof, recite patent eligible subject matter. []
"Applicant submits that all of the pending claims are in condition for allowance []."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 29-35).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments submitted November 28, 2025 at REMARKS pp. 29-35 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. The Applicant has raised the so-called --Berkheimer argument--. As a fully proper response, the Examiner has cited one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). Questions of preemption are inherently addressed within the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated into the above depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved using this framework to identify preemptive claims. While a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not establish that a claim is eligible.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018); viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require: "the control flow that governs when presale purchase orders are generated, when transactions are processed using the purchase order and user payment data, and when asset nonfungible token data corresponding to asset nonfungible tokens is generated based on the processing of the transaction and transmitted to the user device based on the device authentication status".
The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-PGPUB US 20220147988 A1 by ALEXA; Tatiana et al. discloses CREATING A SMART CONTRACT ON A BLOCKCHAIN LEDGER.
US-PGPUB US 20070226122 A1 by Burrell; C. Austin et al. discloses Electronic trading system.
US-PGPUB US 20200119932 A1 by Cambou; Bertrand F et al. discloses RESPONSE-BASED CRYPTOGRAPHY USING PHYSICAL UNCLONABLE FUNCTIONS.
US-PGPUB US 20240127614 A1 by Kim; Young L et al. discloses IMAGE PROCESSING AND AUTHENTICATION OF UNCLONABLE FUNCTIONS.
US-PGPUB US 20170330073 A1 by UR; Shmuel discloses INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT AND TRADING.
US-PGPUB US 20210248594 A1 by YANTIS; Jonathan et al. discloses TOKENIZATION PLATFORM.
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 SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 01/26/2026