DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 12/23/2024.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1 and 19 are dawn to system claims; claim 20 is drawn to a method claim, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 (claims 19 and 20 are similar in scope):
at least one processor;
at least one memory storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions;
wherein, when executed by the processor, the non-transitory computer-executable instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
providing a web-based portal accessible via a computer application on a user device;
receiving a challenge request from a challenge creator;
generating a challenge in response to the challenge request;
receiving post requests from a plurality of post creators in response to the challenge;
generating posts in response to the post requests, each post associated with one of the plurality of post creators;
displaying, on a graphical user interface of the user device, the posts via the web-based portal;
receiving vote requests from a plurality of voters, each vote request including at least one of the posts;
generating votes in response to the vote requests, each vote including at least one of the posts and associated with one of the plurality of voters;
ranking the posts based on the votes for each of the posts;
receiving a payment request; and
initiating, based on the ranking of the posts, payment to one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, or at least one of the plurality of voters in response to the payment request.
The abstract idea, recited above, includes: providing a web-based portal accessible via a computer application on a user device; receiving a challenge request from a challenge creator;
generating a challenge in response to the challenge request; receiving post requests from a plurality of post creators in response to the challenge; generating posts in response to the post requests, each post associated with one of the plurality of post creators; displaying, on a graphical user interface of the user device, the posts via the web-based portal; receiving vote requests from a plurality of voters, each vote request including at least one of the posts; generating votes in response to the vote requests, each vote including at least one of the posts and associated with one of the plurality of voters; ranking the posts based on the votes for each of the posts;
receiving a payment request; and initiating, based on the ranking of the posts, payment to one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, or at least one of the plurality of voters in response to the payment request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing relationships by following rules, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing personal interactions between people by following rules or instructions, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (processor; memory storing non-transitory computer executable instructions in claim 1; a first/second computing device in claim 19; computing device and user device in claim 20) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-18 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of respective claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claims 2-5, 8, and 16 each further describes what the challenge request entails; claim 6, 7, and 10-15 each describes ranking the votes; claim 9 describes the distribution percentages; claim 17 describes the post request; claim 18 describes the vote request; etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in the respective claim 1.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cvinar et al. (US20200065853A1)
With respect to claim 1 and 20
Cvinar teaches the limitation:
at least one processor; at least one memory storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions; wherein, when executed by the processor, the non-transitory computer-executable instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising (see [0195]):
providing a web-based portal accessible via a computer application on a user device (see [0089]);
receiving a challenge request from a challenge creator; generating a challenge in response to the challenge request ([0015], A method of conducting a video competition includes receiving a challenge request from each of at least two content providers and activating a challenge competition, including publishing a theme for the challenge to the at least two content providers.);
receiving post requests from a plurality of post creators in response to the challenge; generating posts in response to the post requests, each post associated with one of the plurality of post creators ([0006], A method of providing a tournament platform in a network includes using a processor to perform the steps of activating a competition, receiving video submissions, including live video feeds, from a plurality of content providers.);
displaying, on a graphical user interface of the user device, the posts via the web-based portal ([0017], The video submissions can be live streaming videos. Relaying the received video submissions includes establishing real time connections (RTC) between the at least two content providers and the plurality of voters. A media stream comprising the received video submissions can be transmitted directly from the at least two content providers to the plurality of voters. Alternatively, a media stream comprising the received video submissions can be relayed through a server from at least two content providers to the plurality of voters. The received video submissions can be displayed to a reviewer, and an acceptance indicator or a rejection indicator for each of the received video submissions can be received.);
receiving vote requests from a plurality of voters, each vote request including at least one of the posts; generating votes in response to the vote requests, each vote including at least one of the posts and associated with one of the plurality of voters ([0149], Examples of voting procedures follow. In some embodiments, a user wishes to vote for a contest and initiates a vote request; see claim 5, relaying the received video submissions from the at least two content providers to a plurality of voters, the received video submissions simultaneously presenting to the plurality of voters; receiving votes from the plurality of voters; and determining a winning content provider based on the received votes);
ranking the posts based on the votes for each of the posts ([0104], The ranking stage can be limited by a period of time, by a number of videos, by a number of videos reaching a certain threshold of votes, or any combination thereof.);
receiving a payment request ([0075], For example, a user can have a requested set compensation amount for all video entries.); and
initiating, based on the ranking of the posts, payment to one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, or at least one of the plurality of voters in response to the payment request (see [0106-0107])
With respect to claim 19
Cvinar teaches the limitation:
at least one memory storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions; a first computing device with at least one processor; a second computing device associated with a voter (see [0142].);
wherein, when executed by the second computing device, the non-transitory computer-executable instructions cause the second computing device to perform operations comprising:
accessing a web-based portal via a computer application on the second computing device (see [0089]), wherein posts are displayed on a graphical user interface of the second computing device via the web-based portal ([0017], The video submissions can be live streaming videos. Relaying the received video submissions includes establishing real time connections (RTC) between the at least two content providers and the plurality of voters. A media stream comprising the received video submissions can be transmitted directly from the at least two content providers to the plurality of voters. Alternatively, a media stream comprising the received video submissions can be relayed through a server from at least two content providers to the plurality of voters. The received video submissions can be displayed to a reviewer, and an acceptance indicator or a rejection indicator for each of the received video submissions can be received.); each post associated with a post creator from among a plurality of post creators in response to a challenge ([0006], A method of providing a tournament platform in a network includes using a processor to perform the steps of activating a competition, receiving video submissions, including live video feeds, from a plurality of content providers.);
sending, to the first computing device, at least one vote request including at least one of the posts, the at least one of the posts selected via a user interface element of the graphical user interface ([0149], Examples of voting procedures follow. In some embodiments, a user wishes to vote for a contest and initiates a vote request; see claim 5, relaying the received video submissions from the at least two content providers to a plurality of voters, the received video submissions simultaneously presenting to the plurality of voters; receiving votes from the plurality of voters; and determining a winning content provider based on the received votes), wherein the at least one vote request is sent in response to the user interface element selection ([0068], The sponsor is also able to reach the viewing public through the tournament platform. As tournaments are hosted, voters view the sponsored content and are actively engaged in selecting and promoting quality content.);
sending, to the first computing device, a payment request ([0075], For example, a user can have a requested set compensation amount for all video entries.); and
receiving, based on a ranking of the posts based on votes for each of the posts, a payment in response to the payment request, wherein the votes include a vote generated from the vote request (see [0106-0107]).
With respect to claim 2
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the challenge request includes a start time and an end time, wherein the operations of receiving the post requests and generating the posts are performed after the start time and before the end time ([0181], When a sponsor enters the platform and elects to initiate a challenge or a tournament they are walked through a workflow, including the steps of verifying content information, choosing a type of contest, the…; [0157], Video Type: For example, the challenge can be with live streaming video or an uploaded video. If the user chooses to do upload video, the participants of the challenge can be given a period of time (e.g., 10 minutes, 30 minutes, one hour, one day, etc.) to prepare their content and upload it to the site; [0106], Each battle may be open for a period of time or until a threshold number of voters have viewed and voted upon the videos. The winning video of each battle progresses in the tournament, until one winner is declared.); and wherein the operations of receiving the payment request and initiating the payment is performed after the end time ([0107], Prizes can be provided to the winner and/or to any number of finalists..…Each stage of a contest can provide prizes for success specific to that stage.)
With respect to claim 4
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the challenge request includes an entry fee amount; wherein each post request includes a request to transfer an entry fee equal to the entry fee amount from a post creator digital wallet to a challenge digital wallet; and wherein the operation of generating the posts includes facilitating transfer of the entry fee from the post creator digital wallet to the challenge digital wallet for each post request ([0066], the content providers 120 can, optionally and through on-platform currency, be charged an entry fee to join a contest, with the on-platform currency being a digital representation of, for example, an accumulated number of points, on-platform currency or dollars, or awards generated through experiential success on the platform and not through the deposit of legal tender into the providers' accounts; see also [0086],
With respect to claim 7
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein at least two of the posts are equally ranked when ranked based on the votes for each of the posts; and wherein the operation of ranking the posts includes ranking a later-generated of the at least two posts that are equally ranked higher an earlier-generated of the at least two posts that are equally ranked ([0103], The ranking stage can occur after receipt of a number of video entries or after a period of time. Ranking of the videos can occur to determine the seeding order of the videos. The ranking can be based solely on sponsor review, provider review, public review, or any combination thereof. The ranking stage is optional. There can be one ranking stage, or there can be multiple ranking stages. During the public review, video submissions are presented to users and users may rank or vote on such submissions. For example, as shown in FIG. 10, a listing of submitted videos is presented to a user with the user having the ability to click on and vote or rank any particular video. The videos can be presented in a random order, or in an order representative of their current rank. Additional information, such as the Quality Score by the Sponsor and/or the Platform, the total number of votes, and the current or final score can also be presented. A popup indicating how the score is calculated can also be presented.)
With respect to claim 8
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the challenge request includes distribution percentages for one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, and at least one of the plurality of voters; and wherein the operation of initiating the payment includes initiating payment to one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, and at least one of the plurality of voters based on the distribution percentages (see [0107] and claim 5, Prizes can be provided to the winner and/or to any number of finalists. For example, the largest prize can be awarded to the winner of the tournament, with lesser prizes going to the content providers of second-place, third-place, etc. videos; receiving a challenge request from each of at least two content providers;.)
With respect to claim 9
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 8. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the distribution percentages are at least for the challenge creator, a post creator from the plurality of post creators associated with a post that is highest ranked, and the voters of the plurality of voters that voted for the post that is the highest ranked ([0079], Content providers and voters can also be categorized based on metrics. For example, content providers can be organized based on provider metrics, such as, for example, a number of submitted videos, number of winning videos, percentage of submitted videos having won a competition, percentage of winning videos across several competitions originating from the provider, number of competitions entered, average votes per submitted video, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 10
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the operation of initiating the payment to the one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, and at least one of the plurality of voters includes initiating a transfer of a digital asset from a challenge digital wallet to digital wallets of one or more of the challenge creator, at least one of the plurality of post creators, and at least one of the plurality of voters ([0086], The compensation amount can be in the form of currency, remittance for goods, remittance for services, physical items of value, other items of value, such as an invitation into exclusive contest(s) or publicity, or any combination thereof. Similarly, an award to the winner of the tournament can be in the form of an amount of currency, remittance for goods, remittance for services, physical items of value, other items of value, or any combination thereof. Currency can include cash, electronic coins or tokens, Bitcoin, crypto-currency, on-platform currency, or coupons having cash value.)
With respect to claim 11
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the operation of receiving the challenge request from the challenge creator includes receiving the challenge request from a challenge creator digital wallet (see claim 5, receiving a challenge request from each of at least two content providers.)
With respect to claim 13
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the operation of receiving the post requests from the plurality of post creators in response to the challenge includes receiving the post requests from post creator digital wallets associated with the plurality of post creators, wherein at least one of the post requests is associated with a verified post creator digital wallet from among the post creator digital wallets; and wherein the operation of generating the posts in response to the post requests includes generating a post in response to the at least one post request that is associated with the verified post creator digital wallet ([0116], An activation of a Challenge Battle can include publishing a basis for the competition and criteria for entering, notably a ‘wager’ of on-platform-currency that a content-creator places in order to join. The wager can be viewed as an “entry fee,” but in some embodiments, the cost associated with the entry fee is not of a tangible value or legal tender. The cost can be an on-platform currency that is awarded through experiential success on platform. In this form of contest, users opt to wager their currency and battle against one another. Video submissions for these kinds of contests can undergo an optional review process by sponsor where they are scored based on mechanics established by sponsor. There may be multiple sponsors assigned to each contest. Assuming approval of the sponsor(s), video submissions can then undergo a review process by the platform in which the videos are scored and, for example, the videos may be scanned by a facial-recognition module to verify that the submission has been made by a person associated with the user account. The order of approval can be adjusted. For example, the tournament platform can be the first or last step in approval of the content. Either a sponsor or the tournament platform may reject the content. Content may be automatically rejected if the content does not pass facial-recognition approval from the account creator. Upon approval by all parties, a challenge battle contest initiates; see also claim 5, receiving video submissions from the at least two content providers.)
With respect to claim 14
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the operation of receiving the post requests from the plurality of post creators in response to the challenge includes receiving the post requests from post creator digital wallets associated with the plurality of post creators, wherein at least one of the post requests is associated with an unverified post creator digital wallet from among the post creator digital wallets; wherein the operations further comprise validating the unverified post creator digital wallet; and wherein the operation of generating the posts in response to the post requests includes generating a post in response to the at least one post request that is associated with the unverified post creator digital wallet after validating the unverified post creator digital wallet ([0116], An activation of a Challenge Battle can include publishing a basis for the competition and criteria for entering, notably a ‘wager’ of on-platform-currency that a content-creator places in order to join. The wager can be viewed as an “entry fee,” but in some embodiments, the cost associated with the entry fee is not of a tangible value or legal tender. The cost can be an on-platform currency that is awarded through experiential success on platform. In this form of contest, users opt to wager their currency and battle against one another. Video submissions for these kinds of contests can undergo an optional review process by sponsor where they are scored based on mechanics established by sponsor. There may be multiple sponsors assigned to each contest. Assuming approval of the sponsor(s), video submissions can then undergo a review process by the platform in which the videos are scored and, for example, the videos may be scanned by a facial-recognition module to verify that the submission has been made by a person associated with the user account. The order of approval can be adjusted. For example, the tournament platform can be the first or last step in approval of the content. Either a sponsor or the tournament platform may reject the content. Content may be automatically rejected if the content does not pass facial-recognition approval from the account creator. Upon approval by all parties, a challenge battle contest initiates; see also claim 5, receiving video submissions from the at least two content providers.)
With respect to claim 15
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from a user, a report stating that a post violates terms and conditions of the system; sending a notification to an administrator regarding the report; receiving, from the administrator, a request to block the post from being displayed or from being included in a vote request or a vote; and removing the post from being displayed or from being included in a vote request or a vote ([0181], When a sponsor enters the platform and elects to initiate a challenge or a tournament they are walked through a workflow, including the steps of verifying content information, choosing a type of contest, the theme of the contest, the length and configuration of the stages of the contest (e.g., open, battling, ranking), editing options (e.g., providing title, information, call-to-action content, etc.), designating a prize package, creating advertisements, inviting users, importing emails (e.g., to provide for notifications and/or invitations), choosing voting mechanics for winner determination, editing graphics and rules associated with the contest, and/or selecting whether the contest is for uploaded-video or live stream, and whether the contest will require augmented reality, virtual reality, live steam, and/or uploaded video. Further workflow steps can also appear during the pendency of the contest and/or following the completion of the contest. For example, the steps of selecting winners (e.g., providing sponsor quality review scores, viewing voting results of contests, etc.), finalizing the tournament, providing payment, and congratulating users are also provided to the sponsor.)
With respect to claim 16
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the challenge request includes one or more of an initial reward amount, an entry fee amount, a minimum voting fee amount, a start time, an end time, challenge criteria, or distribution percentages; and wherein the challenge generated in response to the challenge request includes the one or more of the reward amount, the entry fee amount, the minimum voting fee amount, the start date, the end date, the challenge criteria, or the distribution percentages ([0181], When a sponsor enters the platform and elects to initiate a challenge or a tournament they are walked through a workflow, including the steps of verifying content information, choosing a type of contest, the theme of the contest, the length and configuration of the stages of the contest (e.g., open, battling, ranking), editing options (e.g., providing title, information, call-to-action content, etc.); see [0157], If the user chooses to do upload video, the participants of the challenge can be given a period of time (e.g., 10 minutes, 30 minutes, one hour, one day, etc.) to prepare their content and upload it to the site.)
With respect to claim 17
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein each post request includes one or more of a timestamp, post creator identity data, blocked/unblocked status data, or post content; and wherein each post generated in response to each post request includes a corresponding one or more of the timestamp, the post creator identity data, the blocked/unblocked status data, or the post content ([0010], The activation of a competition can further include the publication of at least one prerequisite requirement for content providers. The verification of the prerequisite requirement having been met can occur before or during the assigning of a seed-position to each of the acceptable video submissions; see also [0081], Prerequisite requirements for voters can include, for example, a voter metric, proof of purchase of an item, proof of existing ownership of an item, proof of attendance at a virtual or physical event, identity confirmation, entry of invitation code, visiting a brand's website or destination URL, downloading an app, acceptance of video-content-entry into the contest, or any combination thereof.)
With respect to claim 18
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein each vote request includes one or more of voter identity data, selected post data, or a voting fee amount; and wherein each vote generated in response to each vote request includes a corresponding one or more of the voter identity data, the selected post data, or the voting fee amount ([0081], Prerequisite requirements for voters can include, for example, a voter metric, proof of purchase of an item, proof of existing ownership of an item, proof of attendance at a virtual or physical event, identity confirmation, entry of invitation code, visiting a brand's website or destination URL, downloading an app, acceptance of video-content-entry into the contest, or any combination thereof.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Cvinar et al. (US20200065853A1) in view of Ta (US20200279249A1).
With respect to claim 3
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches: wherein the challenge request includes an initial reward amount (0084], A tournament can be structured to provide a compensation amount as a fee-for-service to all submitted video submissions or, preferably, to content providers having submitted an acceptable video.); and wherein generating the challenge includes generating a ([0101], Upon acceptance, a compensation amount can be transmitted to the content-provider of an accepted video. Also upon acceptance, a fee-for-service amount can be charged to the sponsor for each approved video. In addition, content-providers may receive a participation award. The participation award can be transmitted to the content provider by way of tokens, or other usable currency on the tournament platform, or goods.)
Cvinar doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Ta teaches:
Smart contract ([0031-0032], CoinLinked is a secured social network, as the platform security incorporates a two-factor authentication (e.g., an extra layer of protection used to ensure the security of user profile beyond just a username and password) and AI-based external identity user validation services. CoinLinked is a blockchain social network platform with new business models based on smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps). This enables the implementation of cryptocurrency transactions, a token distribution reward system, and creation of an internal tokenized marketplace. In one embodiment, CoinLinked is a cryptocurrency social network platform in which users can earn reward points which can be redeemed, exchanged, and/or used to purchase digital platform security tokens at a discounted price.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cvinar with the teaching of Ta as they relate to social monetization network where users can earn reward. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of a social platform for video competition submission in Cvinar to include a smart contract that enables rewards as taught by Ta for the predicated result of enabling quicker and more efficient (e.g., from a power perspective) processing of cryptocurrency transactions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Cvinar et al. (US20200065853A1) in view of Quigley et al. (US20230274244A1).
With respect to claim 12
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Quigley teaches: wherein the operation of generating the challenge includes generating a smart contract on a blockchain ([0425], The distributed ledger technology has been enhanced by the concept of “smart contracts”. Smart contracts are executable computer programs that are compiled into the data in a block in a distributed ledger by the developers of the smart contract. Once a smart contract has been deployed into a distributed ledger, other users of the distributed ledger may execute the smart contract with confidence that it has not been modified by a malicious third party.), wherein the operation of generating the posts includes generating, for each of the posts, a block on the blockchain with the smart contract ([0695], If at 2516, the loan smart contract instance determines that the loan is paid in full, the loan smart contract instance may generate a data block indicating a repayment event and may write the data block to the distributed ledger, as shown at 1520. In this way, the loan smart contract instance creates a record of the repayment event indicating that the loan has been paid in full.), and wherein the operation of generating the votes includes generating, for each of the votes, a block on the blockchain with the smart contract ([0342], In this example, a stage-level governance smart contract 2024 may include a listening thread that receives votes from authenticators and determines whether a super majority voted to amend the authentication stage-level governance. If so, the smart contract may perform an action to amend the authentication stage-level governance and may generate a block indicating the results of the vote that is written to a corresponding distributed ledger 2014.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cvinar with the teaching of Quigley as they relate to processing a set of collected data. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of a social platform for video competition submission in Cvinar to include a smart contract that corresponds to generating a block to a vote/post as taught by Quigley for the predicated result of enabling quicker and more efficient (e.g., from a power perspective) processing of cryptocurrency transactions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Cvinar et al. (US20200065853A1) in view of Kim et al. (US20210004777A1).
With respect to claim 5
Cvinar teaches the limitation of claim 1. Cvinar further teaches:
wherein the challenge request includes a minimum voting fee amount ([0066], The content providers 120 are not be charged an “entry fee” of tangible value to join the tournament. However, the content providers 120 can, optionally and through on-platform currency, be charged an entry fee to join a contest, with the on-platform currency being a digital representation of, for example, an accumulated number of points, on-platform currency or dollars, or awards generated through experiential success on the platform and not through the deposit of legal tender into the providers' accounts);
Cvinar doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Kim teaches:
wherein each vote request includes a request to transfer a voting fee equal to or greater than the minimum voting fee amount from a voter digital wallet to a challenge digital wallet; and wherein generating votes includes facilitating transfers of the voting fee from the voter digital wallet to the challenge digital wallet for each vote request (see [0043], a voting item may optionally be included only in transactions incurring a transaction fee. Alternatively, only a voting item included in a transaction incurring a transaction fee may be collected as a valid vote. Only a vote of a transaction which provides economic benefit to the blockchain system 10 through a transaction fee may be counted as a valid vote.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cvinar with the teaching of Kim as they relate to collecting voting items included in a plurality of transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of a social platform for video competition submission in Cvinar to include a system of including a voting fee amount as taught by Kim for the predicated result of enabling quicker and more efficient (e.g., from a power perspective) processing of cryptocurrency transactions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Cvinar et al. (US20200065853A1) in view of Kim et al. (US20210004777A1), and further in view of Brower et al. (US20130253994A1).
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Cvinar and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 5. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Brower teaches: wherein the operation of ranking the posts based on the votes for each of the posts includes ranking the posts based on an amount of voting fees transferred with each vote ([0069], The items can be ranked based on the user votes received or the received micro-donation amounts. In different embodiments, only unique user votes can be counted regardless of the associated donation amounts or the number of user votes counted can be proportional to the donation amounts. In further embodiments, categories displayed under different tabs can be selected by a user or the categories that are most popular among the users of the cent-vote system 100 can be automatically selected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cvinar/Kim with the teaching of Brower as they relate to collecting voting items included in a plurality of transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Cvinar/Kim, for example a social platform for video competition submission in Cvinar, to include a method of ranking the posts based on the votes as taught by Kim for the predicated result of enabling quicker and more efficient (e.g., from a power perspective) processing of cryptocurrency transactions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 5/16/2026
Prosecution Insights