DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
The examiner notes that there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention. This is because the claims contain very specific steps and procedures in the business idea of matching event to user’s electronic wallets. However, the claims contain very specific steps in the process of carrying out the matching function. The examiner notes that independent product claim 20 is written slightly differently from independent claims 1 and 11. To be comprehensive, the examiner lists them separately below:
Claims 1 and 11 contain the specific steps as follow:
Identifying users related to an event (note, an “event” may be a service provided to the subscribers/uses, see paragraph 33 of specification);
Receiving event information (“first information”);
Obtaining a token relating to the event;
Token is linked to a blockchain; and
Based on the token’s blockchain-transaction and event information, matching
electronic wallets to the individual users; and
to second information (information related to the performance of event generated for users, see paragraphs 9, 72, 101 of Specification) indicating that a virtual currency is allocated based on a transaction of the token.
As the claim stated:
“identify, using communication circuitry of the electronic device, a plurality of users related to an event; receive first information related to performance of the event from at least one of the plurality of users; obtain a token, corresponding to the received first information, and linked to a blockchain distributed to a plurality of external electronic devices; and based on identifying that the token is transacted based on the blockchain, and based on the first information corresponding to the token, match electronic wallets corresponding to each of the plurality of users, to second information indicating that a virtual currency is allocated based on a transaction of the token (emphasis examiner’s).”
Claim 20 contains the specific steps as follow:
Based on “first information”, generating the event;
Receiving “second information”;
“second information” = performance of the event generated for the user;
Based on first information and second information, obtaining a token;
Token is generated by the performance of the event;
Token is linked to a blockchain; and
Based on the token and event information, matching electronic wallets to each users.
As the claim stated:
“based on receiving, using communication circuitry of the electronic device, first information for generating an event from one of a plurality of users, generate the event; receive second information related to performance of the generated event from one of the plurality of users; based on at least one of the first information or the second information, obtain a token, wherein the token is generated by the performance of the event, and the token is linked to a blockchain distributed to a plurality of external electronic devices; and based on identifying completion of the event, match the token to electronic wallets corresponding to each of the plurality of users (emphasis examiner’s).”
Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the combination of the elements in the claimed invention.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note, the specification is not clear when discussing the “medium”. While the specification states what it "may" do, and gives examples, but it does not clearly excludes signals (or software).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 1 and product claim 20. Claim 11 recites the limitations of matching event to user’s electronic wallets.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Identifying users related to an event; receiving event information; obtaining a token relating to the event; token is linked to a blockchain; based on the token and event information, matching (i) electronic wallets to each users; and (ii) to second information indicating that a virtual currency is allocated on a transaction of the token, – specifically, the claim recites: identifying… a plurality of users related to an event; receiving, from at least one of the plurality of users, first information related to performance of the event; obtaining a token that corresponds to the received first information, and that is linked to a blockchain distributed to a plurality of external electronic devices; and based on identifying that the token is transacted based on the blockchain, and based on the first information corresponding to the token, matching electronic wallets corresponding to each of the plurality of users, to second information indicating that a virtual currency is allocated based on a transaction of the token, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a computer readable storage medium”, “one or more programs”, “a processor of an electronic device”, “communication circuitry of the electronic device”, “a blockchain”, and “a plurality of external electronic devices”, in claim 1, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 11 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a processor of an electronic device, communication circuitry of the electronic device, and a plurality of external electronic devices; a storage unit such as a computer readable storage medium and a blockchain; and software module and algorithm such as one or more programs. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims v and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of wherein first users suggesting the event from among the plurality of users, provide at least one of the first information or a second token different from a first token, wherein the second token is the token to generate the event, and wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are configured to generate the event, based on at least one of the first information or the second token, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to, based on performance of the event, obtain the second information, wherein the second information comprises the first information, and the second information corresponds to each of the plurality of users, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of wherein the first token comprises non-fungible token (NFT), and wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to, based on the first information, obtain the NFT, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to: match at least one of the first token, to first electronic wallets corresponding to each of the first users from among the electronic wallets, and the second information, and based on the second information, match the second token, to second electronic wallets corresponding to each of second users, wherein the second users participate in the event, and the second users are different from the first users, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of wherein the second users provide a third token based on the first information in order to participate in the event, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to allocate the first token to the first information comprising data for identifying the first users and one or more third users designated for monitoring the event from among the plurality of users, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to perform burning at least one second token based on completion of the event, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more programs that, when executed by the processor of the electronic device, are further configured to, based on burning the at least one second token, obtain the first token, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor of the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of wherein the event is provided to subscribers of a service provided by the electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of wherein first users suggesting the event from among the plurality of users, provide at least one of the first information or a second token, wherein the second token is different from a first token and the second token is the token to generate the event, and wherein the method further comprises generating the event, based on at least one of the first information or the second token, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of based on performance of the event, obtaining the second information, wherein the second information comprises the first information, and the second information corresponds to each of the plurality of users, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of wherein the first token comprises non-fungible token (NFT), and wherein the method further comprises, based on the first information, obtaining the NFT, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of matching at least one of the first token, to first electronic wallets corresponding to each of the first users from among the electronic wallets, and the second information, and based on the second information, matching the second token, to second electronic wallets corresponding to each of second users, wherein the second users participate in the event, and the second users are different from the first users, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of allocating the first token to the first information comprising data for identifying the first users and one or more third users designated for monitoring the event from among the plurality of users, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of performing burning at least one second token based on completion of the event, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of based on the burning the at least one second token, obtaining the first token, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of wherein the event is provided to subscribers of a service provided by the electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jung (20250238773) teaches method, electronic device and recording medium of processing non-fungible token.
Vladi (11080687) teaches systems and methods for blockchain-based transaction settlement.
Ko (10878411) teaches method and apparatus for issued token management.
Yun (20230237476) teaches electronic wallet, server for executing exchange of blockchain tokens using the server .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights