DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 3/18/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite, in part, detecting a device; identifying at least one token that associated with the device; determining to authorize based on a hash value associated with the at least one token, wherein the hash value is generated using a hash algorithm, a private key, and a public key; receiving a search query for location information associated with the device; collecting the location information, wherein the location information includes one or more devices that are within a proximity of the device; determining a score for grouping the device and the one or more devices into a product plan based on an amount of time that the device and the one or more devices are within the proximity; and in response to the score being above a threshold, providing at least one reward to an account associated with the device to join the one or more devices in the product plan.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites providing a reward for joining multiple devices within a detected proximity in a product plan, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of blockchain network (claims 1, 8, 15, merely a standard decentralized storage), user interface (claims 1, 8, 15, merely indicative of software), device (claims 1, 8, 15, only considered an additional element actively performing a step as opposed to merely being an object being acted upon by the method), product tracking system (claims 1, 8, 15); one or more processors (claim 8), one or more memories (claim 8), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15), computing system (claim 15). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of detecting, receiving, collecting, determining, and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using blockchain network (claims 1, 8, 15, merely a standard decentralized storage), user interface (claims 1, 8, 15, merely indicative of software), device (claims 1, 8, 15, only considered an additional element actively performing a step as opposed to merely being an object being acted upon by the method), product tracking system (claims 1, 8, 15); one or more processors (claim 8), one or more memories (claim 8), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15), computing system (claim 15) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification paragraph 0019); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 appear to merely limit generating and displaying a hierarchy of user information, providing a second reward to a product distributor, providing a second reward based on referral, recording a reward on the blockchain, determining the reward based on a broad recitation of a machine learning algorithm, and what the reward is specifically, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The blockchain network (claims 1, 8, 15, merely a standard decentralized storage), user interface (claims 1, 8, 15, merely indicative of software), device (claims 1, 8, 15, only considered an additional element actively performing a step as opposed to merely being an object being acted upon by the method), product tracking system (claims 1, 8, 15); one or more processors (claim 8), one or more memories (claim 8), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15), computing system (claim 15) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of detecting, receiving, collecting, determining, and providing, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the blockchain network (claims 1, 8, 15, merely a standard decentralized storage), user interface (claims 1, 8, 15, merely indicative of software), device (claims 1, 8, 15, only considered an additional element actively performing a step as opposed to merely being an object being acted upon by the method), product tracking system (claims 1, 8, 15); one or more processors (claim 8), one or more memories (claim 8), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15), computing system (claim 15) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 as currently written are allowable over prior art. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is currently pending and represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Prior art Martin (U.S. Patent No. 9,760,843) teaches pooling of devices within proximity to one another in a wireless network and updating the service plans for those devices (See Column 2 Lines 16-31). Martin further teaches that operating within a pooled mode would result in a discounted rate (See Column 8 Lines 4-13). However, Martin does not teach any of the blockchain functionality, nor does Martin teach determining a score for grouping devices, basing that score on an amount of time the devices are within a proximity, or that score being above a threshold.
Prior art Alghamdi (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0258099) teaches tracking of user and peer devices via a digital ledger, the digital ledger comprising a searchable index that can search location (See Paragraph 0067 and Claim 1). However, Martin does not teach any of the device grouping functionality with regard to rewards provided for a joint product plan, scoring and determining if the score is above a threshold, proximity and the amount of time within a proximity.
Further references that teach blockchain functionality with regard to device location or product ownership include Doyal (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0090090), Haldenby (CA 2938519), and Arora (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0082401).
Prior art Toval (U.S. Pub No. 2024/0414075) teaches determining devices used by the same user by determining an association score reaches a predetermined threshold (See Paragraph 0020). Toval further teaches proximity between devices as being a factor in determining ownership (See Paragraphs 0108, 0114-0116, 0125). Toval, however, does not teach any of the blockchain functionality, not does Toval teach anything regarding rewards provided for a joint product plan.
Further references that teach associating multiple devices to a group or same ownership based on location include Bakshi (U.S. Patent No. 11,157,958), Reese (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0365313), and Fransen (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0104831).
While many of the cited references above teach particular pieces of the claimed invention, it would not be obvious to combine the cited references, as the rejection would be piecemeal and would not arrive at the claimed invention. There is no prior art that teaches each and every limitation of the invention as a whole in combination with one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “These features are for a technical process that protects user data by using a blockchain and analyzes location information of devices. That the location information is related to human activity does not make increased data security of the blockchain network not a technical field. The improvements achieved by the claimed process are improvements to a technical field”. However, the point of the invention is not to provide an improvement over current blockchain technology. Rather, the blockchain technology present in the claimed invention is merely applied to the abstract idea of providing a reward for joining multiple devices within a detected proximity in a product plan. The fact that user data is protected is a function of hash algorithms and public/private keys. But there is also no improvement to hash algorithms either. The only improvement is to the abstract idea, which is not patent eligible.
Applicant argues “The disclosed system provides: 1) increased security for personal data by storing it on a blockchain network; 2) transparency of user data to identify users to reward; 3) accuracy in identifying customers that are loyal to products or services across multiple companies; 4) a method to identify characteristics of customers that result in loyalty to a company; and 5) identify fraud of employees that group unrelated customers into plans." (Applicant's Specification, [0015]).” However, as stated above, storage of personal data on a blockchain naturally provides more security. The blockchain is still merely being used to apply the abstract idea. As for points 2-5, these are all directly related to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Applicant argues “Example 42 explains that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception because "the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user"” and recites the newly amended claim language while further arguing “at least the following claim features are specific steps that are not inherent in the purported abstract idea of "certain methods of organizing human activities," (Office Action, pg. 3,) and these claim features provide meaningful limitations that prevent the claims covering the purported abstract idea as a whole”. However, Example 42 was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the combination of elements were not recited at a high level of generality and the technical improvement was described in the specification as “a network-based patient management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient information from various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format, stores it in network-based storage devices, and generates messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that information is updated”. Such was claimed as an unconventional combination of additional elements that resulted in the improved system described by the specification. Example 42 laid out a specific problem in the background that was improved by conversion of non-standardized data to standardized data, and according to the instant specification, no such problem related to conversion of data is being solved by the instant invention. Therefore, Example 42 does not appear to be analogous to the current claims. Rather, the current claims seem to be more in line with the abstract idea that was outlined in the Electric Power Group Federal Decision, which was “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”. The instant claims also share a commonality with the Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank Federal Decision, which outlines “tailoring content based on information about the user” as an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. (See MPEP 2106.05(c).) In this case, the claims recite specific steps for obtaining certain types of data (e.g., location information) and transforming this data into "a score." (i.e., a categorically different "thing"). Accordingly, all five factors of the transformation, as listed in MPEP 2106.05(c), indicate integration of any judicial exception into a practical application”. However, determining a score from collected data is a calculation or extrapolation at best, but certainly not a transformation. Both the collected data and the score are pieces of data, so no transformation actually occurs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights