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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application No. 18/849910, filed on 03/18/2025. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-10 have been rejected as follow,
Examiner’s Note
A degree of service, “a method for providing a virtual keyboard service based on an NFT price determined to correspond to the degree of service activation according to the present disclosure includes measuring the degree of service activation of a virtual keyboard service that uses a keyboard NFT and a word NFT, determining prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT in consideration of the degree of service activation, and providing the virtual keyboard service by minting the keyboard NFT and the word NFT based on the prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT.
0036] Here, the degree of service activation may be measured in consideration of at least one of values including sales corresponding to the virtual keyboard service, the total number of users, the daily number of users accessing the virtual keyboard service, and an NFT trading volume, and may be measured as a higher value as at least one of the values increases.”, instant specification paragraphs 34 and 36.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. Applicant filed certified patent document, Application numbers 10-2022-0062866 on 2022-05-23; 10-2022-0062867 on 2022-05-23; 10-2022-0178642 on 2022-12-19; 10-2022-0178643 on 2022-12-19. However, a translation of said applications have not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“ arranging an entire payment pool for paying a cryptocurrency reward based on a total number of users who use …; separating a first mining volume … and a second mining volume …; measuring a first payment based on an ability of a keyboard NFT of a target user in consideration of the first mining volume and measuring a second payment based on a word NFT mapped to the target user in consideration of the second mining volume; …”,
The “arranging, separating, measuring” limitations, as drafted, is a process and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. A method for providing a virtual keyboard service. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“paying a cryptocurrency reward a default payment, the first payment, and the second payment to the target user”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data or sending or delivering data like payment.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure: “a virtual keyboard service through an application; by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT); by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT in the entire payment pool”.The limitations comprise generic recited software including data manipulation. The use of a “virtual keyboard” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“a virtual keyboard service through an application; by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT); by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT in the entire payment pool”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“a virtual keyboard service through an application; by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT); by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT in the entire payment pool”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“paying a cryptocurrency reward a default payment, the first payment, and the second payment to the target user”; These are limitations toward accessing or receiving or delivering data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“a virtual keyboard service through an application; by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT); by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT in the entire payment pool”, are anything other than generic software and not any hardware at all, and the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. Concluding that generating information as a function of other information and a there is not sufficient to remove the claims from the abstract realm. The use of pieces of logic or code for calculations is similarly deficient, as it merely reflects the use of the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of estimating advertising elasticity. In this case, the use of a “a virtual keyboard service through an application” and manipulation of data to generate a predictive calcualations is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that “a virtual keyboard service through an application; by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT); by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT in the entire payment pool”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “a degree of service activation”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way. They have the same treatment pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “a degree of service activation”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way. They have the same treatment pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “a degree of service activation”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way. They have the same treatment pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8 and 10, the claims recite elements such as “wherein: the first payment corresponds to a value acquired by applying a keyboard NFT weight corresponding to the ability of the keyboard NFT of the target user to a result of dividing the first mining volume by a number of users having the keyboard NFT, and a sum of the first payments paid to the respective users having the keyboard NFT does not exceed the first mining volume”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20230316280 (Sandari) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20240070711 (Checo) and US PG. Pub. No. 20170116608 (Forzley).
As to claim 1, Sandari discloses a method for providing a virtual keyboard service (see “a payment service computing platform”, abstract and Fig. 1 and associated disclosure), comprising:
a) arranging an entire payment pool (Fig. 1 element 110 “a payment service computing platform”) for paying a cryptocurrency reward based on a total number of users who use a virtual keyboard service through an application;
(“…The payment service computing platform can then cause a user interface to be displayed via a payment application executing on the electronic device, … receiving the incentive(s) in exchange for the user referring at least one other user to a payment service”, abstract.
“[0055] The incentive component 128 may be configured to…As another example, users 102 may be offered loyalty incentives in exchange for the users 102 achieving a certain level of usage of the payment service 108, such as keeping the payment application 106 installed on an electronic device 104 for a certain amount of time,…”, paragraph 55.
Fig. 4A and associated disclosure. Fig. 6 and associated disclosure. Specially elements 604, 608 [Examiner interprets as a cryptocurrency reward based on a number of users who use a virtual keyboard service. It is obvious that Sardari has total number of users to calculate incentive] and 614 [Examiner equates as paying a cryptocurrency reward ] and claim 16 of Sardari);
b) separating a first mining volume by keyboard usage by users having a keyboard Non-Fungible Token (NFT)
(“…users may be offered loyalty incentives in exchange for the users achieving a certain level of usage of the payment service [Examiner equates keyboard usage ], such as keeping the payment application installed on an electronic device for a certain amount of time, completing an above-threshold number of transactions over a prescribed time period using the payment application, or the like”, paragraph 24.
“[0056] The ranking component 130 may be configured to rank a plurality of contacts of the user 102 in a ranked order based on any suitable affinity metric [Examiner interprets as a first mining volume by keyboard usage by users ] (e.g., a strength metric, a value metric, etc.) associated with the different contacts, where the affinity metrics represents affinities of the relationships between the user 102 and his/her contacts. …whether the user 102 and a contact are associated on a social network platform (e.g., friends, followers, etc.), or any other suitable indicia of an affinity between the user 102 and a contact….”, paragraph 56. “a ranked list (e.g., N-best list) of contacts”, paragraph 56
Sardari discloses mining volume of keyboard usage because, “[0104] At 608, invitation data indicating acceptances of one or more invitations sent at block 606 is monitored,…In some examples, the payment service computing platform 110 may monitor the invitation data at block 608, and the invitation data that is monitored may be stored in the datastore(s) 116. In some examples, the monitoring of the invitation data may include determining whether the other user(s) has/have entered a referral code sent as part of the invitation(s). In some examples, the invitation data is monitored at block 608 in real-time or near real-time”, paragraph 104. And “…to continue monitoring for the criteria being met/satisfied at block 612. If it is determined that the criteria are met/satisfied, the process 600 may follow the YES route from block 612 to block 614.
[0107] At 614, an amount of funds based on the incentive(s) 120 is determined and transferred from a payment service account of the payment service 108 to the user 102 in fulfilment of the incentive(s). In some examples, the payment service computing platform 110 may transfer the funds at block 614”, paragraphs 106 and 107 and Figs 1 and 6.
“[0128] At 1102, one or more machine learning models are generated. For example, the machine learning models may utilize predictive analytic techniques, which may include, for example, … machine learning, and/or data mining…”, paragraph 128
See also “…the incentive 120 (sometimes referred to herein as a “bounty” or a “reward”) can be any suitable type of incentive including, without limitation, a fiat currency (e.g., a dollar amount), a gift (e.g., a gift card, a non-fungible token (NFT), etc.), a coupon, a discount, loyalty points, a status, a stock, a bond, a mutual fund, an exchange-traded fund (ETF), a cryptocurrency, a NFT, a purchase (e.g., of stock, cryptocurrency, NFT, etc.), or the like…”, paragraph 55 );
[and a second mining volume by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT] in the entire payment pool;
c) measuring a first payment based on an ability of a keyboard NFT of a target user in consideration of the first mining volume
(“0010] FIG. 6 is an example process for incentivizing a user with a dynamically determined incentive [measuring a first payment ], …”, paragraph 10 and Fig. 6.
“[0014] FIG. 10 is an example process for determining whether to modify an incentive based on the passage of time [Examiner equates ability of the keyboard] and/or additional user data received since determining the incentive, according to an implementation of the present subject matter”, paragraph 14 and Fig. 10.
“….dynamically determining a value (e.g., a dollar amount) of the incentive 120, the payment service computing platform 110 may be configured to dynamically determine a time period for which the incentive 120 is active [Examiner equates ability of the keyboard] (e.g., redeemable, fulfillable, etc…”, paragraph 60).
[ and measuring a second payment based on a word NFT mapped to the target user in consideration of the second mining volume; ]
d) paying a cryptocurrency reward corresponding to [a default payment], the first payment, [and the second payment to the target user]
( Sardari discloses paying a cryptocurrency reward corresponding to the first payment, “…dynamically determine an incentive(s) associated with the user based on the user data. The incentive(s) may be determined using a trained machine learning model(s) that is trained based on previously collected user data. …”, abstract.
“[0010] FIG. 6 is an example process for incentivizing a user with a dynamically determined incentive, according to an implementation of the present subject matter”, paragraph 10 and Fig. 6 element 614.
Sardari’s system also teaches minimum payment, “the incentive(s) 120 may decrease, such as by decreasing the incentive to a minimum amount (e.g., zero”, paragraph 126).
Although, Sardari discloses “ The payment service computing platform can then cause a user interface to be displayed via a payment application executing on the electronic device, … receiving the incentive(s) in exchange for the user referring at least one other user to a payment service”, abstract.
“[0055] The incentive component 128 may be configured to…As another example, users 102 may be offered loyalty incentives in exchange for the users 102 achieving a certain level of usage of the payment service 108, such as keeping the payment application 106 installed on an electronic device 104 for a certain amount of time,…the incentive 120 (sometimes referred to herein as a “bounty” or a “reward”) can be any suitable type of incentive including, without limitation, a cryptocurrency, a NFT, a purchase (e.g., of stock, cryptocurrency, NFT, etc.), or the like…”, paragraph 55 and Fig. 4A and associated disclosure. Fig. 6 and associated disclosure. Specially elements 604, 608 , 614 and claim 16. Sardari does not disclose
a second mining volume by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT
and measuring a second payment based on a word NFT mapped to the target user in consideration of the second mining volume;
a default payment
and the second payment to the target user
However, Checo discloses
usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT
(Checo discloses keywords and data that the user typed [Examiner equates to words], “A method of incentivizing a consumer to share data useful for ad targeting includes providing a mobile application with a dedicated digital keyboard and an integrated blockchain wallet; collecting first person data typed into the keyboard according to a smart contract; storing the data on a data storage medium; and rewarding the consumer for sharing the data. A system for incentivizing the consumer to share the data includes a mobile computing device having a processor and a memory. A mobile application resident on the memory includes a keyboard graphical interface integrated with a smart contract dashboard and a cryptocurrency wallet address. The consumer can generate a passive income”, abstract.
“[0001] The present invention relates to collection of consumer data and, more particularly, to a smart contract-integrated keyboard data collection and rewards system” paragraph 1.
“…collecting first person data typed into the dedicated digital keyboard according to a smart contract ; storing the first person data on at least one data storage medium; and rewarding the consumer for sharing the first person data typed into the dedicated digital keyboard”, paragraph 8.
“ keyword prediction, autocorrect, auto-capitalization, location access, search engine, optical character recognition, Web3, rewards, crypto tokens, NFTs”, paragraph 19.
“…users is computed by a connected crypto wallet based on a keyword pricing algorithm driven by feedback from data sales up to a monthly maximum limit and deposited into the wallet…”, paragraph 21.
“…receiving targeted adds based on the keywords they have typed, as well as push notifications and/or in-app notifications, and receiving crypto rewards in exchange for the data collected in the background on their chosen mobile apps. The rewards are stored in the user's wallet….”, paragraph 25.
“6. The method of claim 1, wherein the earnings comprise an amount of cryptotokens calculated by applying a predetermined keyword pricing algorithm.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying targeted ads based on keywords within the first person data;” claims 6 and 9 of Checo).
Sardari does not expressly disclose a second mining volume, but it is obvious from Checo teaching in at least “6. The method of claim 1, wherein the earnings comprise an amount of cryptotokens calculated by applying a predetermined keyword pricing algorithm”, claim 6 that a second mining volume by usage of a word corresponding to a word NFT is present in the algorithm of Checo in order to obtain cryptotokens in a keyword pricing algorithm and the results would have been predictable.
Further, Checo discloses
and measuring a second payment based on a word NFT mapped to the target user in consideration of the second mining volume;
and the second payment to the target user
(see at least Checo teaches second payment based on a word NFT, “6. The method of claim 1, wherein the earnings comprise an amount of cryptotokens calculated by applying a predetermined keyword pricing algorithm”, claim 6 of Checo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Checo ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to measuring or calculating keyboard data collection including keyword metrics in order to offer rewards (see Checo paragraph 1)
Next, Forzley discloses
a default payment
(Forzley that is in the business of “[0001] The present invention is related to the field of payment processing using cryptocurrencies”, paragraph 1.
“The payment processor may choose a default crypto-currency or use .. parameters to choose one”, paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Forzley ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer a default payment in order to support “payment processing using cryptocurrencies”, (Forzley paragraph 1).
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20230316280 (Sandari) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20240070711 (Checo) US PG. Pub. No. 20170116608 (Forzley) in view of US Patent No. 11562451 (Kozlowski) and in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20230281583 (Jakobsson).
As to claim 2, Sandari discloses wherein:
the first payment corresponds to a value acquired by applying a keyboard NFT [weight] corresponding to the ability of the keyboard NFT of the target user to [a result of dividing the first mining volume by a number of users having the keyboard NFT, and a sum of the first payments paid to the respective users having the keyboard NFT does not exceed the first mining volume].
(giving the broadest reasonable interpretation(BRI), MPEP 2111, Sandari teaches the first payment corresponds to a value acquired by applying a keyboard NFT
(“…The payment service computing platform can then cause a user interface to be displayed via a payment application executing on the electronic device, … receiving the incentive(s) in exchange for the user referring at least one other user to a payment service”, abstract.
“[0055] The incentive component 128 may be configured to…As another example, users 102 may be offered loyalty incentives in exchange for the users 102 achieving a certain level of usage of the payment service 108, such as keeping the payment application 106 installed on an electronic device 104 for a certain amount of time,…”, paragraph 55.
Fig. 4A and associated disclosure. Fig. 6 and associated disclosure. Specially elements 604, 608 and 614, “[0010] FIG 6 an example process for incentivizing a user with a dynamically determined incentive, according to an implementation of the present subject matter”, paragraph 10 and claim 16 of Sardari. The Examiner notes that limitations such as “ a result of dividing the first mining volume by a number of users having the keyboard NFT, and a sum of the first payments paid to the respective users having the keyboard NFT does not exceed the first mining volume” are directed to business rules language or conditions to grant an incentive. Giving the BRI, Sandari discloses conditions or rules of doing business to grant incentives, “0034] In some examples, one or more conditions may be associated with an incentive, and those conditions may be monitored for compliance in order to fulfill the incentive. For instance, criteria for fulfilling the incentive may be satisfied when a user(s) complies with the one or more conditions that are associated with the incentive…”, paragraph 34).
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
determining a result of dividing the first mining volume by a number of users having the keyboard NFT (Examiner equates as a ratio]
Kozlowski teaches determining prices for an NFT, “…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
Sardari does not disclose but Jakobsson discloses
[weight]
(Jabobsson that is in the business of issuance NFTs, “0075] Issuance of NFTs 106 via the NFT platform 100 enables verification of the authenticity of NFTs independently of the content creator 104 by confirming that transactions written to one or more of the immutable ledgers are consistent with the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs” paragraph 75 and paragraph 74 and Fig. 1.
“…weights may be applied to indicate the value of transactions for each one of the content elements being considered (for recommendation to the users of the predominant cluster). Weights may be generated based on auctions and/or bids between content providers, for example. In such cases, the highest bid within each category (categories corresponding to different clusters of tags and associated content), may be given the greatest weight in content selection. …
[0260] In accordance with various embodiments, clustering may include the clustering of tokens based on associated tags. In such cases, the clustering may use weights associated with expected trustworthiness and/or accuracy of tags.”, paragraph 258 and 260)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jakobsson’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer weights in order to add criteria to assign incentives.
As to claim 3, Sandari does not disclose but Checo discloses
the second payment corresponds to a value acquired by applying a word NET [weight] corresponding to the word NFT mapped to the target user to [a product of the second mining volume and a proportion of usage of a word of the word NFT mapped to the target user, and a sum of the second payments paid to respective users having the word NFT does not exceed the second mining volume].
(Checo discloses keywords and data that the user typed [Examiner equates to words], “A method of incentivizing a consumer to share data useful for ad targeting includes providing a mobile application with a dedicated digital keyboard and an integrated blockchain wallet; collecting first person data typed into the keyboard according to a smart contract; …. A system for incentivizing the consumer to share the data includes a mobile computing device having a processor and a memory. …”, abstract.
“[0001] The present invention relates to collection of consumer data and, more particularly, to a smart contract-integrated keyboard data collection and rewards system” paragraph 1.
“…collecting first person data typed into the dedicated digital keyboard according to a smart contract ; storing the first person data on at least one data storage medium; and rewarding the consumer for sharing the first person data typed into the dedicated digital keyboard”, paragraph 8. “…users is computed by a connected crypto wallet based on a keyword pricing algorithm driven by feedback from data sales up to a monthly maximum limit and deposited into the wallet…”, paragraph 21.
“…receiving targeted adds based on the keywords they have typed, as well as push notifications and/or in-app notifications, and receiving crypto rewards in exchange for the data collected in the background on their chosen mobile apps. The rewards are stored in the user's wallet….”, paragraph 25.
“6. The method of claim 1, wherein the earnings comprise an amount of cryptotokens calculated by applying a predetermined keyword pricing algorithm.” claims 6 and 9 of Checo). The Examiner notes that limitations such as “a product of the second mining volume and a proportion of usage of a word of the word NFT mapped to the target user, and a sum of the second payments paid to respective users having the word NFT does not exceed the second mining volume]” are directed to business rules language or conditions to grant an incentive. Giving the BRI, Checo discloses conditions or rules of doing business to grant incentives, “…a method of incentivizing a consumer to share data useful for ad targeting, comprising: providing to the consumer the mobile application; collecting first person data typed into the keyboard graphical interface according to a smart contract agreed to by the consumer via the smart contract [ business rules or criteria to grant an incentive] dashboard; … and depositing earnings to the cryptocurrency wallet address for sharing the first person data” (Checo Claim 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Checo ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to measuring or calculating second mining volume including keyword metrics in order to offer rewards (see Checo paragraph 1)
Sardari does not disclose but Jakobsson discloses
[weight]
(Jabobsson that is in the business of issuance NFTs, “0075] Issuance of NFTs 106 via the NFT platform 100 enables verification of the authenticity of NFTs independently of the content creator 104 by confirming that transactions written to one or more of the immutable ledgers are consistent with the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs” paragraph 75 and paragraph 74 and Fig. 1.
“…weights may be applied to indicate the value of transactions for each one of the content elements being considered (for recommendation to the users of the predominant cluster). Weights may be generated based on auctions and/or bids between content providers, for example. In such cases, the highest bid within each category (categories corresponding to different clusters of tags and associated content), may be given the greatest weight in content selection. …
[0260] In accordance with various embodiments, clustering may include the clustering of tokens based on associated tags. In such cases, the clustering may use weights associated with expected trustworthiness and/or accuracy of tags.”, paragraph 258 and 260)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jakobsson’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer weights in order to add criteria to assign incentives.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20230316280 (Sandari) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20240070711 (Checo) and US Patent No. 11562451 (Kozlowski) and in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20230281583 (Jakobsson).
As to claim 4, Sandari discloses
a) measuring a degree of service activation of a virtual keyboard service that uses a keyboard NFT and a word NFT;
this limitation comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar manner. Further the claim comprises
b) determining prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT in consideration of the degree of service activation;
(Sardari teaches prices for a keyboard NFT, “A payment service computing platform may receive, from an electronic device, user data associated with a user, and dynamically determine an incentive(s) associated with the user based on the user data. The incentive(s) may be determined using a trained machine learning model(s) that is trained based on previously collected user data…”, abstract.
“…the respective users 102 can interact with the user interfaces, for example, to facilitate transactions (e.g., electronic payments) with other users, to refer other users to the payment service 108 and, in exchange for doing so, receive associated incentives, among other things...”, paragraph 43 and Fig. 1 elements 118(1)…118(N) [Examiner equates prices of the keyboard NFT ].
“[0010] FIG. 6 is an example process for incentivizing a user with a dynamically determined incentive, according to an implementation of the present subject matter”, paragraph 10 and Fig. 6);
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
determining prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT
Kozlowski teaches determining prices for an NFT, “…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
Sardari does not teach, but Jakobson discloses
c) and providing the virtual keyboard service by minting the keyboard NFT and [ the word NFT] based on the prices of the keyboard NFT[ and the word NFT]
(Jakobson teaches minting a NTF, “[0075] Issuance of NFTs 106 [Examiner equates the word NFT and the word NFT ] via the NFT platform 100 enables verification of the authenticity of NFTs independently of the content creator 104 by confirming that transactions written to one or more of the immutable ledgers are consistent with the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs”, paragraph 75 and Fig. 1
“… content creators 104 can incentivize users to grant access to media consumption data using offers including (but not limited to) offers of fungible tokens 118 and/or NFTs 106. In this way, the ability of the content creators to mint NFTs enables consumers to engage directly with the content creators and can be utilized to incentivize users…”, paragraph 78.
“…An NFT 510 in accordance with several embodiments of the invention may include many values including generalized data 511…”, Fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jakobsson’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer multiple NFT values in order to offer multiple mint values.
As to claim 5, Sardari discloses
wherein [the prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT] are determined to be higher as the degree of service activation is higher.
(giving the BRI, Sardari discloses dynamic incentives, “…the example of FIG. 1, the first user 102(1) (User 1) has been offered an incentive 120(1) of $30 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108, while the N.sup.th user 102(N) (User N) has been offered a different incentive 120(N) of $5 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108. These dynamically determined incentives 120 may be presented …”, paragraph 60.
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
wherein the prices of the keyboard NFT and the word NFT are determined
(“…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
As to claim 6, Sardari discloses
wherein the degree of service activation is measured in consideration of at least one of values including sales corresponding to the virtual keyboard service, a total number of users, a daily number of users accessing the virtual keyboard service, and an NFT trading volume,
(Sardiri teaches a total number of users accessing the virtual keyboard service, “…users may be offered loyalty incentives in exchange for the users achieving a certain level of usage of the payment service [Examiner equates keyboard usage ], such as keeping the payment application installed on an electronic device for a certain amount of time, completing an above-threshold number of transactions over a prescribed time period using the payment application, or the like”, paragraph 24.
“[0056] The ranking component 130 may be configured to rank a plurality of contacts of the user 102 in a ranked order based on any suitable affinity metric [Examiner interprets as a first mining volume by keyboard usage by users ] (e.g., a strength metric, a value metric, etc.) associated with the different contacts, where the affinity metrics represents affinities of the relationships between the user 102 and his/her contacts. …whether the user 102 and a contact are associated on a social network platform (e.g., friends, followers, etc.), or any other suitable indicia of an affinity between the user 102 and a contact….”, paragraph 56. “a ranked list (e.g., N-best list) of contacts”, paragraph 56
Sardari discloses mining volume of keyboard usage because, “[0104] At 608, invitation data indicating acceptances of one or more invitations sent at block 606 is monitored,…In some examples, the payment service computing platform 110 may monitor the invitation data at block 608, and the invitation data that is monitored may be stored in the datastore(s) 116. In some examples, the monitoring of the invitation data may include determining whether the other user(s) has/have entered a referral code sent as part of the invitation(s). In some examples, the invitation data is monitored at block 608 in real-time or near real-time”, paragraph 104. And “…to continue monitoring for the criteria being met/satisfied at block 612. If it is determined that the criteria are met/satisfied, the process 600 may follow the YES route from block 612 to block 614.
[0107] At 614, an amount of funds based on the incentive(s) 120 is determined and transferred from a payment service account of the payment service 108 to the user 102 in fulfilment of the incentive(s). In some examples, the payment service computing platform 110 may transfer the funds at block 614”, paragraphs 106 and 107 and Figs 1 and 6);
and is measured as a higher value as at least one of the values increases.
(giving the BRI, Sardari discloses dynamic incentives, “…the example of FIG. 1, the first user 102(1) (User 1) has been offered an incentive 120(1) of $30 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108, while the N.sup.th user 102(N) (User N) has been offered a different incentive 120(N) of $5 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108. These dynamically determined incentives 120 may be presented …”, paragraph 60).
As to claim 7, Sandari discloses
a) measuring a degree of service activation of a virtual keyboard service;This limitation comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar manner. Further the claim comprises
[b) setting a token exchange ratio between a first token corresponding to keyboard tokens and a second token] corresponding to governance tokens in consideration of the degree of service activation;
(Giving the BRI, Sandari discloses conditions or rules of doing business to grant incentives, “0034] In some examples, one or more conditions may be associated with an incentive, and those conditions may be monitored for compliance in order to fulfill the incentive. For instance, criteria for fulfilling the incentive may be satisfied when a user(s) complies with the one or more conditions that are associated with the incentive…”, paragraph 34).
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
b) setting a token exchange ratio between [a first token corresponding to keyboard tokens and a second token
(Kozlowski teaches determining the value of a token and also setting a token exchange ratio, “…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
c) and mining the first token as users use the virtual keyboard service [and exchanging the first token for the second token to correspond to the token exchange ratio].
(see at least in Sardari mining the first token, “[0056] The ranking component 130 may be configured to rank a plurality of contacts of the user 102 in a ranked order based on any suitable affinity metric [Examiner interprets as a first mining volume by keyboard usage by users ] (e.g., a strength metric, a value metric, etc.) associated with the different contacts, where the affinity metrics represents affinities of the relationships between the user 102 and his/her contacts. …whether the user 102 and a contact are associated on a social network platform (e.g., friends, followers, etc.), or any other suitable indicia of an affinity between the user 102 and a contact….”, paragraph 56. “a ranked list (e.g., N-best list) of contacts”, paragraph 56.
Sardari teaches exchange of tokens and assigning fraction of tokens, “…Because incentives 120 are offered to the user 102 in exchange for the user 102 inviting another user (e.g., a contact of the user 102) to the payment service 108, the incentive 120, in some examples, may include two or more values, which may be the same value or different values, and wherein a first value is associated with the user 102 and a second value(s) is associated with another user(s) that the user 102 can invite to the payment service 108. For example, a $10/$5 incentive 120 may indicate that the user 102 is to receive $10 and that the invitee (e.g., other user) is to receive $5 in exchange for the user 102 inviting or referring the invitee/other user to the payment service 108. …”, paragraph 55);
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
exchanging the first token for the second token to correspond to the token exchange ratio.
(“…apparatus 100 may receive, and/or convert assets into, NFTs and then deploy them onto immutable sequential listing 192”, paragraph 16 and abstract.
“…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.
“…In some embodiments, the at least a processor may tokenize and mint …works and NFTs. Persons skilled in the art, upon reviewing the entirety of this disclosure, will be aware the various methods for converting an asset into a cryptographic asset for purposes as described herein”, 35:40-45.
See also,
“…aspects of the present disclosure are directed to an apparatus for revenue sharing of non-fungible tokens. A “non-fungible token” (NFT), as defined, is a cryptographic asset on a blockchain with unique identification codes and metadata that distinguishes it from other NFTs. NFTs may include tokens t may be used to represent ownership of unique items …. NFTs give the ability to assign or claim ownership of any unique piece of digital data, trackable by using a decentralized platform as a ledger. Ownership of an NFT is managed through unique metadata and identification that prevents no other token from replicating it; NFT may have a single owner at a time and/or multiple owners of fractional or partial interests in the NFT, which may be conveyed and/or transferred to new owners in bundled or independent transactions. NFTs and the ledger that it is tracked on open a new avenue for income and digital exchange….”, 2:40-55.
“…Only the tokenization system can tokenize data to create tokens, or detokenize back to redeem sensitive data under strict security controls”, 12:29-30 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
As to claim 8, Sandari discloses
[wherein the token exchange ratio] is set to increase a value of the first token relative to that of the second token as the degree of service activation is higher.
(giving the BRI, Sardari discloses dynamic incentives, “…the example of FIG. 1, the first user 102(1) (User 1) has been offered an incentive 120(1) of $30 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108, while the N.sup.th user 102(N) (User N) has been offered a different incentive 120(N) of $5 for inviting other users (e.g., “friends”) to the payment service 108. These dynamically determined incentives 120 may be presented …”, paragraph 60).
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
b) a token exchange ratio
(Kozlowski teaches determining the value of a token and also setting a token exchange ratio, “…processor 140 may calculate a … value for each … NFT. In some embodiments, processor 140 may calculate contribution metric 156 based on the … values of each … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. …, a … value may include a monetary value. A …value may include a ratio and/or percentage describing the level of originality of a … work [Examiner equates keyboard or word]. ..”, 19:22-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
As to claim 9, Sandari discloses
a) measuring a degree of service activation of a virtual keyboard service;
This limitation comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar manner. Further the claim comprises
c) , and the second token corresponds to governance tokens capable of being cashed through a cryptocurrency exchange.
(Giving the BRI, Sandari discloses conditions or rules of doing business to grant incentives, “0034] In some examples, one or more conditions may be associated with an incentive, and those conditions may be monitored for compliance in order to fulfill the incentive. For instance, criteria for fulfilling the incentive may be satisfied when a user(s) complies with the one or more conditions that are associated with the incentive…”, paragraph 34).
Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
b) determining a burn amount of a second token exchangeable using a first token mined through the virtual keyboard service in consideration of the degree of service activation; (12:16-30); c) and burning an amount of the second token corresponding to the burn amount, wherein: the first token corresponds to keyboard tokens capable of being used in the virtual keyboard service
(Kozlowski teaches burn or detokenize back an NFT, “ With continued reference to FIG. 1, an NFT may include a reference that maps back to the sensitive data through processor 140. In some embodiments, apparatus 100 may include a tokenization system. A “tokenization system,” as used in this disclosure, is a software and/or hardware module used to link the original data to a token but does not provide any way to decipher the token and reveal the original data. In a non-limiting embodiment, a tokenization system may be logically isolated and segmented from data processing systems and applications that previously processed or stored sensitive data replaced by tokens. Only the tokenization system can tokenize data to create tokens, or detokenize back to redeem sensitive data under strict security controls”, 12:16-30);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
As to claim 10, Sardari does not teach, but Kozlowski discloses
wherein burning the second token is performed in consideration of at least one of a preset burn period, occurrence of a preset burn event, or a combination thereof.
(Kozlowski teaches burn or detokenize back an NFT, “… Only the tokenization system can tokenize data to create tokens, or detokenize back to redeem sensitive data under strict security controls”, 12:16-30.
“…With continued reference to FIG. 1, apparatus 100 may deploy an NFT into immutable sequential listing 192 via a smart contract. A “smart contract,” as used in this disclosure, is an algorithm, data structure, and/or a transaction protocol which automatically executes, controls, documents, and/or records legally relevant events and actions according to the terms of a contract or an agreement and assign ownership and manage the transferability of the NFT…”, 14-53-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kozlowski ’s teaching with the teaching of Sardari. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to determine prices of an NFT in order to provide value incentives.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“On the Role of Blockchain in Evolving the Online Business Landscape”. IEEE. 2021.
“This contribution explores the business ecosystems that blockchain technology has enabled, both businesses linked to cryptocurrencies and ones that use blockchain as a distributed immutable database, though not crypto related. Moreover, a marketplace, democratizing access to General AI, is proposed”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 2/4/2026