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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 19 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 10 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the display in sequence” in line 15. It appears the claim limitation is missing the word “screen.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 11 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 20 recites a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a processor implemented method, the method comprising: displaying, by one or more hardware processors of a mobile device, a digitally virtualized physical space of a plurality of physical asset holdings of a Basic Emergent User (BEU) on a display screen of the mobile device on detecting an activation event, wherein the digitally virtualized physical space for each of the plurality of physical asset holdings is associated with a geographical location validated by satellite sensors and remote sensing using hyperspectral imaging, wherein the activation event is triggered upon opening an application installed on the mobile device of the BEU; prompting, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, the BEU to provide a goal in terms of a tuple comprising i) an expected profit range, indicative of selling price and a tolerance around the selling price, for a physical asset holding among the plurality of physical asset holdings and an associated status information of the physical asset holding, and ii) a time range within which the expected profit range is to be obtained, wherein the BEU selects the physical asset holding via the digitally virtualized physical space displayed on the display screen; populating, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, a plurality of Socio Economic Cohorts (SECs) and a plurality of Contract Management System Companies (CMSCs) having a positive Reputation Risk (RR) score to be displayed on the display screen based on a plurality of conditions comprising: the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs lie within a satellite based sensor ascertained geo-radius with the physical asset holding as a center, wherein the geo-radius is derived from the time range, the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs satisfy a criteria of being profitable with financial solvency and the positive RR score, the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs is a mix of known, unknown, trusted, and untrusted SECs and CMSCs, wherein the known, the unknown, the trusted, and the untrusted SECs and CMSCs are discovered by querying and looking at digital records in a repository of Filed Public records (FPR) from CMSCs, and the repository of the FPR is internal or external to the mobile device and the repository of the FPR is periodically updated, and the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs for which the selling price and the tolerance provided by the BEU and a buying price and the tolerance specified by a SEC or a CMSC is within a predefined limit to maximize a BEU profit equation, wherein the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs are displayed at zones having a higher probability compared to other zones on the display screen of the mobile device via a layout manager; determining, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, a correlation score based on correlation between i) the expected profit range indicative of the selling price and the tolerance around the selling price, provided by the BEU and ii) the buying price and the tolerance specified by the SEC or the CMSC displayed on the display screen, wherein a maximum correlation score is displayed on the display screen and the SEC or the CMSC associated with the maximum correlation score is highlighted to the BEU, wherein positioning of the display in sequence from the unknown, the known, the trusted and the untrusted SECs and CMSCs on the display screen follows a most accessible screen space to least accessible screen space approach that drives the BEU to explore the unknown, wherein determining the correlation score comprising the steps of: receiving a price and a time range by the BEU creating a set of concentric circles with the BEU as center and making a table with columns including unknown SEC, unknown CMSC, trusted SEC, trusted CMSC, not-trusted SEC, not-trusted CMSC: assigning a threshold value for each inner concentric circle picking the threshold value for a value of the geo-radius and populate a row of the corresponding columns if any one of published contract values of the unknown SEC, the unknown CMSC, the trusted SEC, the trusted CMSC, the not- trusted SEC, the not-trusted CMSC satisfy a criteria that their price minus the received BEU price is within the threshold value determining a frequency count of interaction between a SEC and a CMSC and a frequency count of interaction between the SEC and the BEU; and determining a mean profit for the CMSC, the SEC and the BEU based on the frequency count of interaction between the SEC and the CMSC and the frequency count of interaction between the SEC and the BEU; detecting, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, one or more predefined gestures performed by the BEU to accordingly explore the plurality of SECs and the plurality CMSCs to be displayed on the display screen and in accordance with the one or more predefined gestures updating the maximum correlation score based on an updated plurality of SECs and an updated plurality of CMSCs displayed on the display screen, wherein the BEU has option to terminate the exploration when an intended maximum correlation score is displayed, wherein when the mobile device is dynamically updating the maximum correlation score at a predefined frequency, real-time or live values are displayed on the display screen of the mobile device; prompting, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, the BEU to select a contract partner for trading of at least one of i) the physical asset holding and ii) the associated status information of the physical asset holding from the updated plurality of SECs and the updated plurality of CMSCs; initiating, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, a digital contract between the BEU and the selected contract partner, wherein the digital contract is recorded on detecting a predefined confirmation gesture on the display screen, wherein the digital contract is agreed and executed on a shared common ledger, and wherein the digital contract enables direct trading of at least one of i) the physical asset holding, and ii) the associated status information of the physical asset holding; and normalizing, by the one or more hardware processors of the mobile device, a time scale running into thousands of hours to a 24 hour time scale by mapping the time scale running into thousands of hours into the 24 hour time scale thereby assisting computations involving time in a system, wherein dynamic just-in-time display information on the display screen of the mobile device of the BEU as per the BEU's goals, time, trust, space expectations, which allows the BEU to optimize on the specified goal within the specified time, wherein the BEU is digitally auto-registered with the plurality of SECs on the shared common ledger of a blockchain network wherein the plurality of SECs meet the goals set by the BEU, wherein distributing information visibility to a SEC and a CMSC for a set of K BEUs by dividing a time window between K unit to provide uniform distribution by masking information displayed to the SEC or the CMSC, wherein the display of the information is personalized by tuning an interface layout based on context of a type of user including the BEU, the SEC or the CMSC, wherein a grid layout of the display screen of the BEU is decomposed into a grid each corresponding to each of the plurality of SECs such that a decompose grid method halts when a grid size reduces below 24 pixels square which is a physiological constraint imposed by a tip of a finger. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions (such as contracts, sales activities, and business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following rules. The claim limitations are also a fundamental economic activity, such as trading. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, application, hardware processor, mobile device, satellite sensors, remote sensing, display screen satellite-based sensor, repository, hardware processors, digital contract, shared common ledger, blockchain network, input/output interfaces. The additional elements of a processor, memory, non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, application, hardware processor, mobile device, satellite sensors, remote sensing, display screen satellite-based sensor, repository, hardware processors, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of input/output interfaces are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of digital contract, shared common ledger, and blockchain network, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a processor, memory, non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, application, hardware processor, mobile device, satellite sensors, remote sensing, display screen satellite-based sensor, repository, hardware processors, digital contract, shared common ledger, blockchain network, input/output interfaces) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein a first type of a default display mode arranges each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs from center of the display screen in accordance with descending order of the correlation score indicating a proximity of a SEC and a CMSC to the goal using a recursive display approach, wherein the SEC and the CMSC are segregated on the screen space based on the known and the unknown SECs and CMSCs; and wherein a unique usable color coding is displayed to differentiate the known and the unknown, the SECs and the CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of display screen are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more plurality of gestures defined for the first type of the default display mode comprises: pinch-zoom to navigate panning positive and negative Z-axis, wherein a pinch gesture displays only the plurality of SECs, and a zoom gesture displays only the plurality - of CMSCs where a zoom in and zoom out gesture varies a geo-radius considered to identify the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs in a particular region being searched; swipe left-right panning positive and negative X- axis, wherein a swipe left gesture displays only the plurality of SECs and a swipe right gesture displays only the plurality of CMSCs; and swipe up-down panning positive and negative Y- axis, wherein a swipe up gesture displays only the plurality of SECs and a swipe down gesture displays only the plurality of CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of plurality of gestures, pinch-zoom, zoom in and zoom out gesture, swipe left gesture, swipe right gesture, swipe up gesture and swipe down gesture are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein a second type of a default display mode arranges each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs from center of the display screen in accordance with a paper windmill visual design approach, wherein a plurality of entities including the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs are positioned in a clockwise direction starting from a pinhole and upon selecting an entity the paper windmill visual design approach recursively expands sub-entities, wherein the plurality of entities and the sub-entities are labelled using a digital labelling, wherein the sub-entities are positioned on empty corners of the selected entity in a clockwise direction and when a sub-entity is not placed on an empty corner, then the sub- entity is labelled using an alphabet labelling which is placed equidistantly with other sub- entities These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of cloud computing platforms are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above, and wherein the alphabet labelling runs in an opposite direction of the digital labelling. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the display screen are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the paperwindmill design approach, pinhole, digital labeling, alphabet labeling are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the one or more plurality of gestures defined for the second type of the default display mode comprises: a Circular Anticlockwise fast gesture provides fast sampling of the plurality of the SECs; a Circular Anticlockwise slow gesture provides slow sampling of the plurality of the SECs; a Circular Clockwise fast gesture provides fast sampling of the plurality of the CMSCs; and a Circular Clockwise slow gesture provides slow sampling of the plurality of the CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of plurality of gestures, Circular Anticlockwise fast gesture, Circular Anticlockwise slow gesture, Circular Clockwise fast gesture, Circular Clockwise slow gesture are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein, the unknown SECs and the unknown CMSCs are identified as the known SECs and known CMSCs when the digital contract is recorded with BEU, the known SECs and CMSCs are identified as trusted when the digital contract is executed successfully, and the known SECs and CMSCs are identified as untrusted if the digital contract is not respected or contested, as claimed by either or any party of the digital contract; and wherein, determining whether each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs is profitable with financial solvency is based on filed public records for each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs that are managed by an authority. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the digital contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein generating the digitally virtualized space for each of the physical asset holding and the associated status information of the physical asset holding comprises: acquiring a mobile contact number associated with mobile device by querying the mobile device for Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) information; retrieving information associated with identity of the BEU from one or more databases using the acquired contact number; extracting information on the physical asset holding and the associated status information of the physical asset holding, associated geo location of the BEU from the retrieved information; and generating the digitally virtualized space based on the extracted information for displaying on the display screen. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of database, display screen and mobile device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the BEU communicates via an application (app) installed on the mobile device of the BEU and executed by the one or more hardware processors, wherein the BEU capabilities are expressed along 3 axes of goals-time, cognitive capabilities, and physiological capabilities, and wherein a data associated with a virtualized representation of the plurality of physical asset holdings is in an Extensible Markup Language-Document Type Definition (XML- DTD) format tagged with a unique identifier of each BEU and each data unit of the BEU is associated with one or more entities of a SEC plane, a CMSC plane and this association is recorded on the shared common ledger of the blockchain network. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of mobile device, application, hardware processors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra. The additional elements of virtualized representation are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the blockchain network, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs have the app installed on mobile devices respectively and respond to the digital contract initiated by the BEU, and wherein the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs utilize services of a Non-Living Legal Plane (NLLP) for offering trading pertaining to at least one of i) the physical asset holding and ii) the associated status information of the physical asset holding of a plurality of BEUs, and wherein the SEC having the digital contract with the BEU utilizes the app to explore the plurality of CMSCs, select one CMSC and initiate and record a digital contract with the CMSC. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the app and respective mobile devices are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the digital contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the RR score is a continuous computation process for each of the BEU, the SEC and the CMSC based the success and failure of the digital contract each time, wherein the RR score is incremented by ‘1’ or a fractional value for every successful execution of the digital contract and is decremented by ‘1’ or a fractional value for every contested execution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the digital contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein a first type of a default display mode arranges each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs from center of the display screen in accordance with descending order of the correlation score indicating a proximity of a SEC and a CMSC to the goal using a recursive display approach, wherein the SEC and the CMSC are segregated on the screen space based on the known and the unknown SECs and CMSCs; and wherein a unique usable color coding is displayed to differentiate the known and the unknown, the SECs and the CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the screen space and display screen are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. The additional elements of the recursive display approach and usable color coding are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the blockchain network, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the one or more plurality of gestures defined for the first type of the default display mode comprises: pinch-zoom to navigate panning positive and negative Z-axis, wherein a pinch gesture displays only the plurality of SECs, and a zoom gesture displays only the plurality - of CMSCs; swipe left-right panning positive and negative X- axis, wherein a swipe left gesture displays only the plurality of SECs and a swipe right gesture displays only the plurality of CMSCs; and swipe up-down panning positive and negative Y- axis, wherein a swipe up gesture displays only the plurality of SECs and a swipe down gesture displays only the plurality of CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of plurality of gestures, pinch-zoom, swipe left gesture, swipe right gesture, swipe up gesture and swipe down gesture are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein a second type of a default display mode arranges each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs from center of the display screen in accordance with a paper windmill visual design approach. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of the paperwindmill design approach, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the one or more plurality of gestures defined for the second type of the default display mode comprises: a Circular Anticlockwise fast gesture provides fast sampling of the plurality of the SECs;) a Circular Anticlockwise slow gesture provides slow sampling of the plurality of the SECs; a Circular Clockwise fast gesture provides fast sampling of the plurality of the CMSCs; and a Circular Clockwise slow gesture provides slow sampling of the plurality of the CMSCs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of plurality of gestures, Circular Anticlockwise fast gesture, Circular Anticlockwise slow gesture, Circular Clockwise fast gesture, Circular Clockwise slow gesture are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein, the unknown SECs and the unknown CMSCs are identified as the known SECs and known CMSCs when the digital contract is recorded with BEU, the known SECs and CMSCs are identified as trusted when the digital contract is executed successfully, and the known SECs and CMSCs are identified as untrusted if the digital contract is not respected or contested, as claimed by either or any party of the digital contract. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of the digital contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein determining whether each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs is profitable with financial solvency is based on filed public records for each of the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs that are managed by an authority. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein generating the digitally virtualized space for each of the physical asset holding and the associated status information of the physical asset holding comprises: acquiring a mobile contact number associated with mobile device by querying the mobile device for Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) information;. retrieving information associated with identity of the BEU from one or more databases using the acquired contact number; extracting information on the physical asset holding and the associated status information of the physical asset holding, associated geo location of the BEU from the retrieved information; and generating the digitally virtualized space based on the extracted information for displaying on the display screen. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of database, display screen and mobile device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs, via the app installed on the mobile devices respectively from among the plurality of mobile devices respond to the digital contract initiated by the BEU, and wherein the plurality of SECs and the plurality of CMSCs utilize services of a Non-Living Legal Plane (NLLP) for offering trading pertaining to at least one of i) the physical asset holding and ii) the associated status information of the physical asset holding of a plurality of BEUs, and wherein the SEC having the digital contract with the BEU utilizes the app to explore the plurality of CMSCs, select one CMSC and initiate and record a digital contract with the CMSC; and wherein the RR score is a continuous computation process for each of the BEU, the SEC and the CMSC based the success and failure of the digital contract each time, wherein the RR score is incremented by ‘1’ or a fractional value for every successful execution of the digital contract and is decremented by ‘1’ or a fractional value for every contested execution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of the app and mobile devices are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of the digital contract are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims integrate the exception into a practical application (Pg. 20-29). Examiner disagrees. The currently recited claims simply rearrange or change how the data looks inside the graphical user interface, and do not improve computer functionality through functionality. The specification states that the claims improve computing technology because they enhance data layout so that it displays information at a higher probability zone, but this is not enhancing the technology but simply enhancing the way the displayed information looks (In response to Applicants reference to Core Wireless (Pg. 33), Applicants recited claims do not currency enhance technology). Currently, as recited, the claims control a display which is zoomed in and out using a gesture, where the display has zoom in and out constraint; these recited claims are simply a touch screen operating in its normal capacity. In other words, the recited claims are just a size constraint of a display. Examiner notes that a more dynamic pixel constraint based on the mobile device might helps the claims more toward eligibility, if provided for in the specification.
Regarding Applicants “monopolize” argument (Pg. 29-30, 32), with respect to the pre-emption concern, “[w]hat matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application.” CLSBanklnt’l. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring). Here, the more limited way of implementing the abstract idea narrows the abstract idea so that it is described at a lower level of abstraction. It does not render the abstract idea to which the claim is directed any less an abstract idea. Preemption is not a separate test. To be clear, the proper focus is not preemption per se, for some measure of preemption is intrinsic in the statutory right granted with every patent to exclude competitors, for a limited time, from practicing the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. See Mayo 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. Id. See also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”).
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve an interface layout for trading enhancing the way the displayed information looks, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693