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 .
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.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving characteristics data associated with a plurality of non-fungible products; receiving industry standard pricing data associated with the plurality of non-fungible products; receiving non-industry standard pricing data from a data source separate from the industry standard pricing data; determining a first cell, from a plurality of cells, associated with the first non-fungible product; determining a weight factor for a first cell; determining a first par value for the first cell based on the industry standard pricing data, the non-industry standard pricing data, and the weight factor; associating a first identifier with the first non-fungible product; and generating a first value index for the first non-fungible product based on the first par value and a first offer price associated with the first non-fungible product. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). These limitations fall under the “mental processes” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer system and/or device (processors). The processors in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is 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 in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, and 4-10 recite causing a display of the first identifier and one or more of the first value index, the first par value, or the first offer price via an online marketplace; determining a second par value for a second cell associated with a second non-fungible product based on the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and the weight factor; associating a second identifier with the second non-fungible product; generating a second value index for the second non-fungible product based on the second par value and a second offer price associated with the first non-fungible product; and causing display of the second identifier ordered based on the second value index for the second non-fungible product, on an online marketplace; comparing the first value index and the second index; and based on the comparing: ranking the first non-fungible product and the second non- fungible product; and determining a highest ranked non-fungible product between the first non-fungible product and the second non-fungible product; automatically executing a transaction for the highest ranked non-fungible product based on determining the highest ranked non-fungible product between the first non- fungible product and the second non-fungible product; associating the first non-fungible product with a first seller; upon determining that the second non-fungible product is the highest ranked non-fungible product, determining a suggested sale price for the first non- fungible product; and presenting the suggested sale price for the first non-fungible product to the first seller; automatically changing the first offer price to the suggested sale price for the first non-fungible product; determining an updated first value ratio for the first non-fungible product; determining that the first non-fungible product is a new highest ranked non-fungible product between the first non-fungible product and the second non-fungible product; and automatically generating a notification indicating the new highest ranked non-fungible product; wherein the non-fungible product is a diamond, and the industry pricing data is diamond pricing data; wherein the weight factor is determined based on one or more of the characteristics data, the industry standard pricing data, the non-industry standard pricing data, or external factors.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are as discussed in claim 1 analysis above, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations when viewed individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites generating a first blockchain non-fungible token (NFT); associating the first NFT with the first non-fungible product based on the identifier; and presenting the first NFT via an online marketplace.
Here, this blockchain limitation is further determined if it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The blockchain limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
The limitations when view individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the first par value is output by machine learning model based on inputs to the machine learning model comprising the industry standard pricing data, the non-industry standard pricing data, and the weight factor.
Here, the use of machine learning model is generic data processing, and so does not make the claimed invention less abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as analyzed in claim 1 above. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
The limitations when view individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving characteristics data for each diamond of a plurality of diamonds, receiving industry pricing data associated with the plurality of diamonds; receiving non-industry pricing data from a data source separate from the industry pricing data; determining a respective cell for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; determining a weight factor for each respective cell; determining par values for each respective cell based on the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and respective weight factors for each respective cell of the plurality of cells; generating an identifier for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; receiving an offer price associated with each generated identifier; determining a value index for each generated identifier based on the determined par value and the offer price associated with each generated identifier; ranking each generated identifier based on a corresponding value index of each generated identifier; and presenting the ranking of the generated identifiers on an online marketplace. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). These limitations fall under the “mental processes” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer system and/or device (processors). The processors in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “online marketplace” (network) limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is 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 in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-14 recite wherein the par values for each cell is output by a trained machine learning model based on inputs comprising the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and the weight factors; wherein the trained machine learning model is trained to determine the par values for each cell based on (i) the inputs and (ii) and relative data that includes one or more other par values corresponding to the respective cells and corresponding characteristics information for each of the one or more other diamonds, to learn associations between the inputs and relative data, such that the trained machine learning model is configured to use the learned associations to determine the par values for each of the cells in response to the inputs.
Here, training and applying a machine learning algorithm based on training (historical) data set is generic data processing, and so does not make the claimed invention less abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as analyzed in claim 12 above. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
The limitations when view individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claims 15-16 recite generating a suggested offer price for a first identifier of the generated identifiers for each diamond based on a first value index for the first identifier and a highest value index for a second identifier having a highest value index of the value indexes for each identifier; generating a suggested offer price for a first identifier of the generated identifiers for each diamond based on one of a target value index for the first identifier.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12. The additional elements are as discussed in claim 12 analysis above, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations when viewed individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 17: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving characteristics data for each non-fungible product of a plurality of non-fungible products; receiving industry pricing data associated with the plurality of non- fungible products; receiving non-industry pricing data from a data source separate from the industry pricing data; determining a respective cell, from a plurality of cells, for each non- fungible product of the plurality of non-fungible products; determining a weight factor for each respective cell of the plurality of cells; determining par values for each respective cell of the plurality of cells based on the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and respective weight factors for each of non-fungible product of the plurality of non-fungible products; generating a blockchain non-fungible token (NFT) for each non- fungible products of the plurality of non-fungible products; receiving an offer price associated with each generated NFT; determining a value index for each generated NFT based on the determined par value and the offer price associated with each generated NFT; ranking each generated NFT based on a corresponding value index for each generated NFT; and presenting the ranking of the generated NFTs on an online marketplace. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). These limitations fall under the “mental processes” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer system and/or device (processors). The processors in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “online marketplace” (network) limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is 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 in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-19 recites wherein the par values for each respective cell is output by a trained machine learning model based on inputs comprising the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and the weight factors; wherein the trained machine learning model is trained to determine the par values for each respective cell of the plurality of cells based on (i) the inputs and (ii) and relative data that includes one or more other par values corresponding to one or more other cells and corresponding characteristics information, to learn associations between the inputs and relative data.
Here, training and applying a machine learning algorithm based on training (historical) data set is generic data processing, and so does not make the claimed invention less abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as analyzed in claim 17 above. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
The limitations when view individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Claim 20 recites wherein each NFT of the plurality of NFTs is be created using cryptographic hashes on sets of data linked to previous records on a blockchain.
Here using cryptographic hashes on a blockchain does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as analyzed in claim 17 above. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
The limitations when view individually, or as an ordered combination also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Feldman et al., (USPAP 2014/0304136 A1) is in the field of method of standardization of natural or synthetic gems (diamonds, rubies, sapphires and emeralds) in order to enable the delivery of a standardized, fungible and certified global investment grade gem to be used in financial and commercial products (Para. [0002]) and teaches computer-implemented method for creating virtual fungibility between diamonds (The primary objective is to achieve the maximum degree of fungibility that is acceptable for commercial commodity and financial trading of diamonds and requires the minimum effort for global diamond manufacturers to supply, Para. [0057]; the first criterion considered in creating the exemplary standardized basket was weight class, Para. [0058]; the second criterion used in creating the exemplary standardized basket were quality color and clarity, Para. [0059]; the next criterion used was cut and optical selection. Thus, by using the method described herein, a standardized fungible basket of diamonds has been created that can be traded in conjunction with financial instruments such as futures contracts, options, ETF much like corn or oil or other commodities are traded, Para. [0060)).
However, Feldman does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method for creating virtual fungibility between diamonds, comprising: receiving characteristics data for each diamond of a plurality of diamonds; receiving industry pricing data associated with the plurality of diamonds; receiving non-industry pricing data from a data source separate from the industry pricing data; determining a respective cell for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; determining a weight factor for each respective cell; determining par values for each respective cell based on the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and respective weight factors for each respective cell of the plurality of cells; generating an identifier for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; receiving an offer price associated with each generated identifier; determining a value index for each generated identifier based on the determined par value and the offer price associated with each generated identifier; ranking each generated identifier based on a corresponding value index of each generated identifier; and presenting the ranking of the generated identifiers on an online marketplace.
2. Lert, JR., (USPAP 2018/0134492 A1) is in the field of non-fungible blockchain token (NFT) transferable from wallet to wallet on a blockchain representing ownership of a physical diamond (Abstract) and teaches receiving characteristics data for each diamond (The NFT can be minted and maintained with a list of characteristics gleaned from a physical inspection and/or verification of the diamond, such as by a certified inspection authority. Once minted, the diamond NFT can be sold and resold as much as desired among investors wishing to obtain financial exposure to the value of the physical diamond sitting in storage, Para. [(0026]); generating an identifier for each diamond (The timeline 800 shows the minting of a blockchain NFT representing ownership of a diamond. An issuer calls write function 6 mint Diamond to make a new NFT instance with the characteristics of a diamond that is up for sale and a unique ID number 22853, Para. [0079)).
However, Lert, JR. does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method for creating virtual fungibility between diamonds, comprising: receiving characteristics data for each diamond of a plurality of diamonds; receiving industry pricing data associated with the plurality of diamonds; receiving non-industry pricing data from a data source separate from the industry pricing data; determining a respective cell for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; determining a weight factor for each respective cell; determining par values: for each respective cell based on the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and respective weight factors for each respective cell of the plurality of cells; generating an identifier for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; receiving an offer price associated with each generated identifier; determining a value index for each generated identifier based on the determined par value and the offer price associated with each generated identifier; ranking each generated identifier based on a corresponding value index of each generated identifier; and presenting the ranking of the generated identifiers on an online marketplace.
3. Yantis et al., (USPAP 2021/0326857 A1) is in the field of methods are provided for executing a smart contract that facilitates electronic transfer of non-fungible tokens (Abstract) and teaches computer-implemented method for creating virtual fungibility (Platform 100 provides a marketplace system 102 that allows virtual representations of items to be defined, generated, viewed, and/or redeemed. The marketplace system 102 may include graphical user interfaces that: allow sellers to define virtual representations, allow consumers to view virtual representations of items and to transact for tokens corresponding to the items, and allow token owners to redeem tokens, thereby completing transactions for items indicated by the redeemed tokens, Fig. 1, Para. [0855]; tokens may be fungible tokens or non-fungible tokens, Para. [0853]), comprising: receiving characteristics data associated with non-fungible products (The item management system 202 presents a GUI to a user device 190 of the seller that allows the seller to define the attributes of the item, Para. [0870]); generating an identifier (Technique 900 for tokenizing items. At 9002, item information is obtained. The item information may include a unique identifier for a unique unit of the item and a set of item attributes, Fig. 9, Para. [0965)).
However, Yantis et al., does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method for creating virtual fungibility between diamonds, comprising: receiving characteristics data for each diamond of a plurality of diamonds; receiving industry pricing data associated with the plurality of diamonds; receiving non-industry pricing data from a data source separate from the industry pricing data; determining a respective cell for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; determining a weight factor for each respective cell; determining par values for each respective cell based on the characteristics data, the industry pricing data, the non-industry pricing data, and respective weight factors for each respective cell of the plurality of cells; generating an identifier for each diamond of the plurality of diamonds; receiving an offer price associated with each generated identifier; determining a value index for each generated identifier based on the determined par value and the offer price associated with each generated identifier; ranking each generated identifier based on a corresponding value index of each generated identifier; and presenting the ranking of the generated identifiers on an online marketplace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691