DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 10 June 2026 in regard to application no. 18/780,406. Claims 1-21 are pending, of which claims 16-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-15 and 21 are considered below.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a priority date mismatch between the specification, which gives it as 19 January 2022, and the Application Data Sheet, which gives it as 19 January 2023. The 2022 date seems to be the correct one.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of inventive group I, claims 1-15 and 21, in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “publishing” is inappropriately capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how the “e-commerce platform, [] LMS platform, or [] banking platform” is related to the third party API or the proof of the event completion. Further, the use of “third party” is unclear because it is uncertain what party it is supposed to be external to. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will presume that some kind of platform is somehow involved with the proof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within a statutory category of invention, as each is directed to a method (process). The claim(s) recite(s) receiving information about an event, providing reward tokens, producing output regarding the event, allowing people to register for the event, determining in no particular manner that some people have completed the event, producing further output, and providing rewards to people who completed the event.
Managing events and providing rewards are commercial interactions and fundamental business practices, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Further, these are steps which, in the absence of computers, could be performed in the human mind and with paper records. A race organizer can promote a race, can allow people to register, can determine by observation who has completed, and can provide rewards to those who have. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond, at most, pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer and common network and storage, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic computers using cloud networking and distributed ledger storage. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manage data related to events, participants, rewards, and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
The claim includes a processor and memory. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Cloud computing was well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the claimed invention. For one example among many, Lesavich et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0321654) could write at that early date about a manner in which it was “typically” used. [0154]
Similarly, smart contracts were well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the claimed invention. For one example among many, Beck (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0158275) could write that there were “conventional smart contract authoring techniques”. [0074]
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the invention less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps while using well-understood, routine and conventional techniques – does nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3 and 9 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 4, 11, 13 and 21 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 5-8 and 14 simply recite a source of data; claim 10 simply provides a timing parameter; claims 12 and 15 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, of no patentable significance.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 7-9, 14, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0158443) in view of Ow et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0319436).
In-line citations are to Kilgore.
With regard to Claim 1:
Kilgore teaches: A method performed by one or more computers having a processor and memory [0235; a system includes a “processor” and “memory”] for dynamically managing participation in one or more events, the method comprising:
operating a participation cloud platform [0037; the computer may be a “cloud computing device”] connected to a plurality of event initiators [0029; “merchants”; 0117; the system logs events such as “stake pool activities”] and event participators, [0029; “customers”; 0032; users may connect via a “mobile device” or “smart phone”] wherein the participation cloud platform provides reward token processing on behalf of the plurality of event participators and event initiators; [0009; “mobile wallets” store indicia of funds using “tokenization”; 0020; “rewards distribution” occurs]
receiving initiation information from an event initiator regarding the event through the participation cloud platform; [0127; a new stake account is created]
initiating a smart contract to settle a transaction [0050; “smart contracts” are used for funds transfers] in which the event initiator provides reward tokens to a defined number of event participators for completing the event and the event initiator escrows reward tokens in such quantity to satisfy providing the defined number of event participators with the reward tokens;
Publishing the event to the participation cloud platform by joining the elements of the event and the smart contract to manage reward of event participation… through the participation cloud platform; [0061; the transactions are published on the blockchain]
processing indications of event completion by the one or more event participators, [abstract; rewards may be released when a “desired number of confirmations is completed”]
notifying the event initiator of the event completion; [0064; a “notification to finalize a transaction” is sent to the payee] and
providing reward tokens, effected through the smart contact, to the one or more event participators that have the indications of event completion through the participation cloud platform. [0135; rewards are distributed to such participants]
Kilgore does not explicitly teach processing enrollment requests for the event from the plurality of event participators, but it is known in the art. Ow teaches a distributed ledger wallet administration tool [title] in which pays “rewards in the form of tokens” for people who provide certain services [0508] but only after the user “has completed their registration”. [0516] The system makes use of smart contracts [0355] and APIs. [0243; 0256] It provides “recommendations” as to how a user can better take advantage of participating. [0039] Ow and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing token-based rewards using smart contracts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ow with that of Kilgore in order to ensure scalability, as taught by Ow; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a participant in the manner of Ow rather than, or in addition to, by the means of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
That “the event initiator provides reward tokens to a defined number of event participators for completing the event and the event initiator escrows reward tokens in such quantity to satisfy providing the defined number of event participators with the reward tokens” consists of steps performed outside the scope of the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight; it is merely nonfunctional, descriptive language describing events which led to a transaction in which the claimed method’s only role is to log certain information and remit funds. The phrase “to manage reward of event participation” consists entirely of manner-of-use language which is considered but given no patentable weight. That information provided “have the indications of event completion through the participation cloud platform” consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the claimed substrate (i.e. the computer performing the claimed method) and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the provision of the reward token to the event participator is settled using the smart contract and the participation cloud platform effects depositing of the reward token to a wallet controlled by the one or more event participators. [0037-38; cloud computing works with cryptocurrency wallets; 0082; funds are deposited into such wallets]
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event is initiated using an event management guardian that confirms that the event initiator has sufficient reward tokens escrowed with the participation cloud platform to settle the transaction. [0085-86; the system confirms whether enough tokens are available]
In this and the subsequent claims, referring to a software subcomponent by name, such as “event management guardian”, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction is completed using proof of the event completion received from a third party API, as an e-commerce platform, an LMS platform, or a banking platform. [Ow, 0243, 0256 as cited above in regard to claim 1; as the system is managing financial transactions it reads on an “e-commerce platform”]
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event completion is initiated by a third-party on behalf of the event initiator.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. As claim 1 does not initiate an event completion at all, details about such an unclaimed step are outside the scope of the claimed invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction is settled and managed by the participation cloud platform in an automatic fashion through presentation of definitive or defined proof of the event completion. [0011; a transaction is verified using a proof-of-work mechanism]
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 1, wherein the participation cloud platform is operated by a host. [Sheet 1, Fig. 1; e.g. the payor system reads on a host]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 because, in the context of computing, any platform must inevitably be operated by a host. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 15:
The method of claim 1, wherein the participation cloud platform recommends the event to the one or more event participators. [Ow, 0039 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 21:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the tokens is associated with a unique payment rewards identifier value. [0125]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most a coincidental feature of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. in view of Ow et al. further in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0051514, filed 11 August 2021).
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event completion is verified by receipt of a displayed QR code provided upon the event completion to the event participator, and the QR code, when scanned by the event participator, verifies event completion.
Kilgore and Ow teach the method of claim 1, including verifying event completion, but do not explicitly teach the use of a QR code, but it is known in the art. Schmidt teaches a system for using mobile phones to scan machine-readable codes. [title] A step may take place “after completing [a] Park Ride/Event” in which a guest “scans [a] Door-Level QR Code” to gain access. [0324] It uses “electronic payment systems” [0296] such as a “POS”. [0010] Schmidt and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for tracking events and managing payments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Schmidt with that of Kilgore and Ow in order to improve security, as taught by Schmidt; [0014] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a completion by the means of Schmidt rather than, or in addition to, that of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction is completed using proof of the event completion received from a payment terminal. [Schmidt, 0296, 0010 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction is completed using proof of the event completion received by the event participator from a POS terminal. [Schmidt, 0296, 0010 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. in view of Ow et al. further in view of Mangal et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0273345).
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event is published at provided time after the event is created through a scheduler inside the participation cloud platform.
Kilgore and Ow teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach publishing based on a schedule, but it is known in the art. Mangal teaches a system for determining pedestrians on a path. [title] It uses a “cloud based computing platform for scheduling and delivering” updates. [0044] “published events” (which must already have been created) may be disseminated based on a “scheduler”. [0129] Mangal and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to a cloud based system for managing events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mangal with that of Kilgore and Ow in order to improve safety, as taught by Mangal; [0052] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Mangal’s output in place of, or in addition to, that of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. in view of Ow et al. further in view of Borchetta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0103432).
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, wherein event participators are selected based on transaction information, participation criteria, and payment information.
Kilgore and Ow teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach these criteria, but though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Borchetta teaches an online portal [title] that uses “cloud based servers”. [0045] Participants selected for a campaign “must be registered with [an] organization” and meet a “sales goal”, and use only certain “forms of payment”. [0029] Borchetta and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using cloud computing in financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Borchetta with that of Kilgore and Ow in order to improve the content of a portal, as taught by Borchetta; [0023] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining who participates in an event in the manner of Borchetta instead of, or in addition to, that of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. As it is not positively claimed to select participants, the criteria used in their selection purports to limit a step outside the scope of the claimed process and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. in view of Ow et al. further in view of Krishnaswamy (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0192412).
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 1, further comprising inviting unknown users to create a new single sign-on ID usable to authenticate with and use the participation cloud platform.
Kilgore and Ow teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach asking users to do this, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Krishnaswamy teaches a business intelligence system [title] that uses cloud computing. [0084] It may implement “Single-Sign-On” [0069] as part of a process of “new customer acquisition”. [0138] Krishnaswamy and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using cloud computing and interacting with customers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Krishnaswamy with that of Kilgore and Ow in order to quickly react to events, as taught by Krishnaswamy; [0005] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing output for Krishnaswamy’s purpose rather than, or in addition to, that of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. The limitation of this claim could be accomplished by simply writing “please create a single sign-on ID” on a paper. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilgore et al. in view of Ow et al. further in view of Ornelas et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0182806).
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, further comprising converting the reward token to a digital currency token.
Kilgore and Ow teach the method of claim 1, including the use of digital tokens as cited above, but do not explicitly teach converting, but it is known in the art. Ornelas teaches a digital currency system [title] that converts “currency” to a “cryptographic token” representing a “unit of digital currency”. [0025] It may make use of “smart contract(s)”. [0028] Ornelas and Kilgore are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using smart contracts in the provision of tokens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ornelas with that of Kilgore and Ow in order to securely store and transmit data, as taught by Ornelas; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply creating a token in the manner of Ornelas in place of, or in addition to, that of Kilgore; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights