DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this Non-Final Rejection. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/773,043 filed 07/15/2024 claims priority to provisional application 63/513,398 filed 07/13/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, and method which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for tracking charitable donations. For Claims 1 and 11 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
[…]:
generate, using input received […], a […] contract, the […] contract being configured to define, for at least one party of the […] contract, obligations for performing one or more tasks;
generate, in response to receiving a first data object indicating completion of a corresponding task of the one or more tasks, at least one […] token, wherein the at least one […] token indicates a completed milestone of the […] contract;
generate a cyber label indicating authenticity of the at least one […] token;
associate the cyber label with the at least one […] token;
receive a second data object indicating that an obligation associated with the corresponding task has been performed by the at least one party of the […] contract; and
transmit, based on the second data object, the at least one […] token […] associated with the at least one party of the […] contract,
and responsive to a request to verify authenticity, use the cyber label to authenticate the at least one […] token.
The above limitations are reciting a process of defining obligations of tasks, tracking completed milestones using a token, authenticating the token with a label, receiving indication that an obligation has been performed, and sending a token based on the obligation to raise funds for charitable purposes [Spec Par. 0020, 0018]. The claim elements are reciting commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations for charitable agreements. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, and 11 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, and 11 recites the additional elements of a processor (Claim 1), a memory (Claim 1), interface (Claims 1, and 11), non-fungible token (Claims 1, and 11), smart contract (Claims 1, and 11), a computing device (Claims 1, and 11) that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed use of a processor, memory, interface, and computing device is using the computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see 2106.05(H). The claimed steps/functions that define the abstract idea can be performed manually be people with no technology at all, as was done prior to and after the invention of modern day computers. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a non-fungible token merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor (Claim 1), a memory (Claim 1), interface (Claims 1, and 11), non-fungible token (Claims 1, and 11), smart contract (Claims 1, and 11), a computing device (Claims 1, and 11), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a non-fungible token merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are similarly rejected because they further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 merely describe the task including a charitable gift and the obligation including a charitable gift. Claims 4 and 14 merely describes transferring the charitable gift. Claim(s) 5 and 15 merely describe(s) the NFT being associated with a unique work of art. Claim(s) 6 and 16 merely describe(s) the NFT being associated with a logo. Claim(s) 7 and 17 merely describe(s) the NFT being associated with a digital item.
Claims 4, and 14 further recite the additional elements of an electronic transfer. Claims 8-10, and 18-20 recite the additional elements of a blockchain. These additional elements are again recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 5-10, and 15-20 include the additional elements of non-fungible token, smart contract, and computing device. The non-fungible token, smart contract, and computing device are analyzed in the same manner as the non-fungible token, smart contract, and computing device in the independent claim and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of the non-fungible token merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
Therefore claims 2-10, and 12-20 are patent ineligible. The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 further define the abstract idea by specifying the tasks and obligations, specifying the transferring of the charitable gift, specifying the data associated, and validating the obligation. None of these dependent claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reciting an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more”. Therefore, Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harel (US 20240012944 A1), in view of Sim (US 20260057405 A1), and in further view of Shoji (JP 7891407 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, and Claim 11,
Harel discloses, A system comprising: (Harel Par. 0009) A method comprising: (Harel Par. 0009)
a processor; and (Harel Par. 0020, 0035)
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Harel h Par. 0039, 0048).
generate a cyber label indicating authenticity of the at least one non- fungible token; associate the cyber label with the at least one non-fungible token; "In step 208, the issuer may transfer the issued NFTC 155 to a wallet 116 or 136 of a holder. A holder may then use a holder NFTC app 132 to review and share the NFTC. FIGS. 2C and 2D show exemplary user interfaces for viewing wallets of NFTCs, where each wallet is related to a different field (academic, medical) and the illustrated NFTCs 250 are shown as authenticated via a label 252. It should be appreciated that the app is configured for viewing or sharing the NFTC without requiring that the holder have any knowledge or understanding of NFTs or blockchain. In some embodiments, the holder simply sees a certificate image optionally with related certificate data and an indication of the authenticity of the certificate (since it issued from the wallet of the issuer associated with the certificate)" (Harel Par. 0062).
Examiner Note: A label is generated to be displayed in the image
PNG
media_image1.png
254
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive a second data object indicating that an obligation associated with the corresponding task has been performed by the at least one party of the smart contract; and "In a non-limiting example from the field of finance and specifically financial information, bank cheques and\or financial statements: A financial institute (issuer) may issue an official certification that an entity has generated a bank cheque or holds certain financial information. This certification may have a digital representation of a document that has the cheques details or the financial statements details. This document may be minted as an NFTC, with the details of the cheque or the financial statement. This NFTC may be sent to a designated digital wallet (in this case a financial wallet), created for each customer that created a cheque or had a financial statement sent. By holding the NFTC in a person's digital wallet, the customer (holder) can prove that he has created a bank cheque that has been already approved by an existing financial institute, and that the bank cheque is authentic, or prove that the financial statement or financial information is authentic. This NFTC can be showcased by the customer at other financial institutions, or to any entity" (Harel Par. 0074). "As used herein “NFTC” may include digital certificates represented by NFTs or smart contracts or any other form of blockchain based record. As used herein, “wallet” refers to a digital tool or software application that allows holders/issuers to securely store, manage, and interact with digital assets (NFTCs) on a blockchain, the wallet storing cryptographic keys, for accessing and managing the digital assets on the blockchain" (Holder Par. 0018).
transmit, based on the second data object, the at least one non-fungible token to a computing device associated with the at least one party of the smart contract; and "Any entity (viewer) that wants to authenticate the bank cheque, financial data or financial statement, can see the NFTC was sent to the customer's (holder's) wallet, straight from the official digital wallet of an official financial institute (issuer). It should be appreciated that an NFTC that was not sent from the official digital wallet of the financial institution may be considered suspect or fake. Alternatively, an NFTC (step 202) that did not come from the issuer wallet may have been minted by a holder and may be waiting for official authentication by an issuer" (Harel Par. 0075). "As used herein “NFTC” may include digital certificates represented by NFTs or smart contracts or any other form of blockchain based record. As used herein, “wallet” refers to a digital tool or software application that allows holders/issuers to securely store, manage, and interact with digital assets (NFTCs) on a blockchain, the wallet storing cryptographic keys, for accessing and managing the digital assets on the blockchain" (Holder Par. 0018).
responsive to a request to verify authenticity, use the cyber label to authenticate the at least one non-fungible token "In optional step 202, process 200 may begin with a holder of a certificate 145 requesting authentication by conversion of the held certificate 145 into an authenticated NFTC" (Harel Par. 0060). "In some embodiments, NFTCs that are not yet verified by an issuer will include an indication that they are not yet authenticated. Alternatively, in some embodiments, authenticated or unauthenticated NFTCs may be placed in a separate tab or position on the website or app. In some embodiments, after authentication, a verification symbol may appear as an image or watermark as a layer on the NFTC, or a “authenticated” label 252 may be added (such as shown in FIGS. 2C and 2D), or the NFTC may move to an “authenticated” tab. In some embodiments, if certificates are issued by the academic institution the NFTC certificates may be authenticated by default" (Harel Par. 0111).
Harel discloses authenticating certificates using NFT smart contract blockchain, but fails to disclose generating, using input received at a corresponding interface, a smart contract, the smart contract being configured to define, for at least one party of the smart contract, obligations for performing one or more tasks, and generating, in response to receiving a first data object indicating completion of a corresponding task of the one or more tasks, at least one non-fungible token, wherein the at least one non-fungible token indicates a completed milestone of the smart contract. Sim discloses providing an NFT linked gift certificate service. Sim further discloses, generate, using input received at a corresponding interface, a smart contract, the smart contract being configured to define, for at least one party of the smart contract, obligations for performing one or more tasks; "Herein, the NFT according to an embodiment may include NFT media data, NFT metadata, and/or NFT smart contract data." (Sim Par. 0048). "In addition, in an embodiment, the application 111 may generate a pair of NFTs including the extracted target digital content" (Sim Par. 0203). "In addition, the NFT smart contract data is data related to artist digital content as assets, including owner information, transaction history information, condition information, and price information" (Sim Par. 0052). "The input system 150 may sense a user input (for example, a gesture, a speech command, operation of a button, or other type of input) related to the NFT-linked gift certificate service" (Sim Par. 0102). “The NFT is a technology that is being utilized in various ways to add value to digital content, thereby greatly contributing to market activation” (Sim Par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts on a blockchain of Harel with generating a smart contract to define obligations for performing one or more tasks of Sim to add value to digital content and contribute to market activation (Sim Par. 0007).
The combination of Harel and Sim disclose authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts on a blockchain where the smart contracts define the obligations. The combination of Harel and Sim fail to disclose generating, in response to receiving a first data object indicating completion of a corresponding task of the one or more tasks, at least one non-fungible token, wherein the at least one non-fungible token indicates a completed milestone of the smart contract. Shoji, however, discloses a proof system using NFTs on blockchains. Shoji further discloses, generate, in response to receiving a first data object indicating completion of a corresponding task of the one or more tasks, at least one non-fungible token, wherein the at least one non-fungible token indicates a completed milestone of the smart contract; "The wallet management unit 14 manages the user 2's account (wallet 41) on blockchain 4, issues NFTs related to event proof to wallet 41, and has the function of querying and presenting NFTs held in wallet 41 to third parties. When issuing NFTs related to event proof, the smart contract function of blockchain 4 is used to attach the proof information acquired and collected by the proof processing unit 13 to the attribute information. By presenting the NFT (and the proof information attached as attribute information), the existence of the event related to the proof information can be proven" (Shoji Par. 0027)."The certification processing unit 13, upon completion of a payment made via the settlement processing unit 12, determines whether the event related to the payment is eligible for certification based on the conditions registered in the NFT issuance conditions 15" (Shoji Par. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts that define obligations on a blockchain of Harel and Sim with generating a NFT which indicates a completed milestone of the smart contract of Shoji so the existence of the event related to the proof information can be prove (Sim Par. 0027).
Regarding Claim 2, and Claim 12,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel fails to disclose the one or more tasks including one or more charitable tasks. Shoji, however, further discloses, wherein the one or more tasks includes one or more charitable tasks. "NFT issuance conditions 15 register the conditions for determining whether the event related to the payment is eligible for certification, that is, whether the payment is eligible for NFT issuance" (Shoji Par. 0024). "The UI processing unit 11 has the function of providing a user interface to the user terminal 21, such as a smartphone or PC, owned by the user 2, for actions related to the purchase, donation, and other payments and settlements of goods, services, rights, etc., that may be subject to verification by the user 2" (Shoji Par. 0022). “By presenting the NFT (and the proof information attached as attribute information), the existence of the event related to the proof information can be proven” (Shoji par. 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with one or more tasks including a charitable task of Shoji so the event related to the proof information can be proven (Shoji Par. 0027).
Regarding Claim 3, and Claim 13,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel fails to disclose the obligation including to transfer a charitable gift. Shoji, however, further discloses, wherein the obligation include transferring a charitable gift. "As these examples show, all verifiable events involve payment transactions by users. By capturing these payment transactions and issuing NFTs that include certifying information such as memos regarding the payment subject and the content of the event, it becomes possible to identify and certify the event" (Shoji Par. 0019). "The payment processing unit 12 has the function of processing payments related to events that may be subject to certification, such as payments for goods or donations. For example, it connects to payment systems and services of external financial institutions 3 via a network (not shown), and functions as an interface for issuing payment instructions and requests, obtaining processing results, and querying them. The payment method is not limited to those provided by financial institutions 3, such as cash transfers, remittances, or credit cards; any means can be used, such as various point services or cryptocurrencies (crypto assets) on the blockchain 4." (Shoji Par. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with the obligation including transferring a charitable gift of Shoji to not limit to those provided by financial institutions (Shoji Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 4, and Claim 14,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 3, and method of claim 13, as shown above. Harel fails to disclose transferring of the charitable gift being done electronically. Shoji, however, further discloses, wherein transferring the charitable gift includes electronically transferring the charitable gift. "The payment processing unit 12 has the function of processing payments related to events that may be subject to certification, such as payments for goods or donations. For example, it connects to payment systems and services of external financial institutions 3 via a network (not shown), and functions as an interface for issuing payment instructions and requests, obtaining processing results, and querying them. The payment method is not limited to those provided by financial institutions 3, such as cash transfers, remittances, or credit cards; any means can be used, such as various point services or cryptocurrencies (crypto assets) on the blockchain 4" (Shoji Par. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with the transferring a charitable gift being done electronically of Shoji to not limit to those provided by financial institutions (Shoji Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 5, and Claim 15,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel fails to disclose the NFT being associated with a unique work of art. Sim, however, further discloses, wherein the at least one non-fungible token is associated with a unique work of art. "In an embodiment, the NFT is a virtual certificate of authenticity that indicates unique originality and ownership by including an address indicating a digital file such as an image, video, and/or audio of a predetermined object (for example, specific artist individuals and/or groups) in a token, and may be a digital good for the predetermined object" (Sim Par. 0047). “In particular, in the artistic field, the NFT is a technology that is being utilized in various ways to add value to digital content, thereby greatly contributing to market activation” (Sim Par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with the NFT being associated with a unique work of art of Sim to add value to digital content and contribute to market activation (Sim Par. 0007).
Regarding Claim 6, and Claim 16,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel further discloses, wherein the at least one non-fungible token is associated with a logo. "In step 210, a viewer may search for, pay for viewing and/or view the NFTC 155 held by a holder such as by using app 132. It should be appreciated that the app is configured for viewing the NFTC without requiring that the viewer have any knowledge or understanding of NFTs or blockchain. In some embodiments, the viewer simply sees a certificate image optionally with related certificate data and an indication of the authenticity of the certificate" (Harel Par. 0063).
Examiner Note: It is noted that a logo is considered an image
Regarding Claim 7, and Claim 17,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel further discloses, wherein the at least one non-fungible token is associated with a digital item. "As used herein “NFTC” may include digital certificates represented by NFTs or smart contracts or any other form of blockchain based record" (Harel Par. 0018).
Regarding Claim 8, and Claim 18,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 1, and method of claim 11, as shown above. Harel further discloses, wherein the smart contract is registered on a blockchain. "As used herein an NFT or smart contract is a unit of data recorded and/or stored on a blockchain that may certify a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable" (Harel Par. 0019).
Regarding Claim 9, and 19
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 3, and method of claim 13, as shown above. Harel fails to disclose validating that the task has been performed by a user using a blockchain and second data object. Shoji, however, further discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, validate, using a blockchain and the second data object, that the obligation associated with the corresponding task has been performed by the at least one party of the smart contract. "The wallet management unit 14 manages the user 2's account (wallet 41) on blockchain 4, issues NFTs related to event proof to wallet 41, and has the function of querying and presenting NFTs held in wallet 41 to third parties. When issuing NFTs related to event proof, the smart contract function of blockchain 4 is used to attach the proof information acquired and collected by the proof processing unit 13 to the attribute information. By presenting the NFT (and the proof information attached as attribute information), the existence of the event related to the proof information can be proven" (Shoji Par. 0027)."The certification processing unit 13, upon completion of a payment made via the settlement processing unit 12, determines whether the event related to the payment is eligible for certification based on the conditions registered in the NFT issuance conditions 15" (Shoji Par. 0024). "Once the payment processing is complete, the certification processing unit 13 determines whether the event related to the payment is subject to certification by user 2 (S03). As described above, the determination may be made based on conditions set in advance by user 2 or the seller of the goods, etc., or based on instructions from user 2 regarding the payment. If it is determined that the event is not subject to certification, the event certification process is terminated" (Shoji Par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with validating that the task has been performed by a user using a blockchain and second data object of Shoji so the event related to the proof information can be proven (Shoji Par. 0027).
Regarding Claim 10, and Claim 20,
The combination of Harel, Sim, and Shoji disclose the system of claim 9, and method of claim 19, as shown above. Harel further discloses, wherein transmitting, based on the second data object, the at least one non-fungible token to the computing device associated with the at least one party of the smart contract "Any entity (viewer) that wants to authenticate the bank cheque, financial data or financial statement, can see the NFTC was sent to the customer's (holder's) wallet, straight from the official digital wallet of an official financial institute (issuer). It should be appreciated that an NFTC that was not sent from the official digital wallet of the financial institution may be considered suspect or fake. Alternatively, an NFTC (step 202) that did not come from the issuer wallet may have been minted by a holder and may be waiting for official authentication by an issuer" (Harel Par. 0075). "As used herein “NFTC” may include digital certificates represented by NFTs or smart contracts or any other form of blockchain based record. As used herein, “wallet” refers to a digital tool or software application that allows holders/issuers to securely store, manage, and interact with digital assets (NFTCs) on a blockchain, the wallet storing cryptographic keys, for accessing and managing the digital assets on the blockchain" (Holder Par. 0018).
Harrel discloses transmitting the NFT based on the second data object to a computing device associated with the smart contract, but fails to disclose validating using the blockchain and the second data object, that the obligation associated with the corresponding task has been performed by the at least one party of the smart contract. Shoji, however, discloses,
validating using the blockchain and the second data object, that the obligation associated with the corresponding task has been performed by the at least one party of the smart contract. "The wallet management unit 14 manages the user 2's account (wallet 41) on blockchain 4, issues NFTs related to event proof to wallet 41, and has the function of querying and presenting NFTs held in wallet 41 to third parties. When issuing NFTs related to event proof, the smart contract function of blockchain 4 is used to attach the proof information acquired and collected by the proof processing unit 13 to the attribute information. By presenting the NFT (and the proof information attached as attribute information), the existence of the event related to the proof information can be proven" (Shoji Par. 0027)."The certification processing unit 13, upon completion of a payment made via the settlement processing unit 12, determines whether the event related to the payment is eligible for certification based on the conditions registered in the NFT issuance conditions 15" (Shoji Par. 0024). "Once the payment processing is complete, the certification processing unit 13 determines whether the event related to the payment is subject to certification by user 2 (S03). As described above, the determination may be made based on conditions set in advance by user 2 or the seller of the goods, etc., or based on instructions from user 2 regarding the payment. If it is determined that the event is not subject to certification, the event certification process is terminated" (Shoji Par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system of authenticating certificates using NFT smart contracts of Harel, Sim, and Shoji with validating that the task has been performed by a user using a blockchain and second data object of Shoji so the event related to the proof information can be proven (Shoji Par. 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amendments listed on page 7, of the remarks, are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant provides no arguments as to why the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent sales activities and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people, with or without the aid of a computer, to track charitable donations. Further the additional elements of a processor, memory, interface, non-fungible token, smart contract and computing device are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to track charitable donations, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Applicant further argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the amendments. The rejection has been updated above in light of the amendments, therefore making this argument moot. The 103 Rejection holds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
