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
The reply filed 02/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 15-16, 18, 33-36, and 38 have been amended. Claims 39-46 are new. Claims 3-4, 17, and 19-32 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 33-46 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 9, 15, and cancellation of claim 31, filed 02/20/2026, have overcome the claim objections to claims 9 and 15, and has rendered the claim objection to claim 31 moot. Therefore, the claim objections to claims 9 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, filed 02/20/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the claims “describe a technical mechanism governing how the computing environment itself recognizes and interacts with data objects” on pg. 12, the claimed invention is not concerned with system operability and resource accessibility within the computer platform. Rather, it is using a computer to enable creation of a real-world asset into a digital representation, and keeping a record of such digital representation. This is providing a digital way of tracking the lifecycle of the real-world asset, which is considered a commercial activity. The claimed limitations do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, technical field, and/or technology because the claimed computing components are being used to implement the abstract idea of a commercial activity, not being improved upon. For example, the newly amended limitations authorize one of the listed actions based on a criteria, the computer is used to perform the authorized actions, but the actions themselves to not improve the computer in any way. The amended limitations are using a computer to track or provide others access to the data objects, i.e. RWA tokens, not altering the computer system or architecture. Such behavior does not concern system operability and resource accessibility within the computing platform because creating and tracking tokens does not change the operation of the computer and/or impact use of computer resources such that one can conclude the computer itself is being improved. Furthermore, there are no limitations that suggests data is being mutated other than updating a data structure, and it is unclear how “interface exposure” is an improvement on the functioning of a computer, technical field, and/or technology.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that “the claims integrate any alleged abstract concept into a practical application because system functionality is conditioned on machine-verified state rather than application-level logic” on pg. 13, the claimed invention is directed to operations of an application program. It is unclear how this distinction integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Machine-verified state vs. application-level logic is not a coherent or meaningful comparison and the remarks have failed to provide any further arguments that need to be considered here.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that “the claims are instead directed to a technical computing architecture for controlling whether and how real-world assets are recognized as operative digital entities within a distributed computing environment” on pg. 14, the claimed invention recites a computing architecture, but the claimed invention is not an improvement on the computing architecture itself, or an improvement to a technology or technical field. As stated above, it is merely using a computing architecture to tokenize and track a real-world asset in a digital form.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the “claims further define a lifecycle architecture in which the existence, state, and custody of a digital representation are governed by system-level rules rather than by human discretion or off-chain processes” on pg. 14, there is nothing technical about the “rules,” i.e. predefined issuance criteria. Furthermore, in this instance, using a computer to implement rules or criteria on a digital representation is not an improvement on the computer itself. Ensuring that only verified, valid real-world assets are recognized and acted upon as digital objects is a commercial activity analogous to sales activity/behavior and does not improve the distributed computing system itself. The purpose of a distributed ledger is to store records across multiple ledgers existing across multiple devices. The claimed invention is merely achieving a common function of a distributed ledger. Performing a basic, known function of a distributed ledger cannot possibly be an improvement on the distributed ledger system or data management system itself.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding Enfish on pg. 15, the claimed invention is not a specific improvement in the way computers operate. As previously stated, the claimed invention is using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. In fact, it is the known advantages of using a computer and/or distributed ledger that are being used to improve the business process itself, not to the computer.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the amended claims recite a technical system on pgs. 16-17, the remarks are based on elements that are not being claimed. For example, the system does not define a “technical validity condition,” “reject interaction with the digital representation,” and the claimed limitations do not support the conclusion that the digital representation is “effectively treated as non-existent to the system for all intents and purposes.” Furthermore, there is nothing technical about determining whether an asset is verified to exist in a validated state, and even if system operations are dependent on such determination, this does not result in an improvement of functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. It is merely using the computer to determine whether an asset is verified to exist in a validated state, and using a computer to track the token. An object’s existence, state, and operability within a computing environment does not improve the computing environment itself. Applicant’s reference to the McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ruling does not support the argument for improving the functioning of the computer itself since the patent pertains to automated lip synchronization in 3D animation, which is not analogous to the claimed invention. The “predefined issuance criteria” or “rules” in the claimed invention are not technical or computational in nature. At most, the claimed invention is using a computer to enforce the rules. The rules are not specific “computational” rules that govern how and when a computer system generates or recognizes data objects. Furthermore, the rules, or predefined issuance criteria, in claims 43 and 46 provide further evidence that the claims recite an abstract idea under commercial activity. Creating a token only when verification of the authenticity of the asset, ownership of the asset, and/or compliance of the asset is reciting a commercial activity. There is nothing technical about determining the authenticity, compliance, or ownership of the asset.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding blockchain technology on pgs. 18-19, the response above has already addressed how the claimed invention is not an improvement on the functioning of a computer, technology, and/or technical field. Please see above. Furthermore, Applicant’s reference to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is not relevant to the claimed invention since the claimed invention is not addressing a problem that is specific to the realm of computer networks. At most, the claimed invention is using computer to improve a commercial activity, not improving the computer itself. Authentication and verification of real-world assets see [0002] of instant specification is not a problem specific to computer technology.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding recent rulings on pgs. 19-20, merely reciting the cases with software-based claims does not render every software-based claim patent eligible. Furthermore, the remarks above have already addressed how the claimed invention is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, technology, and/or technical field. Please see above.
In response to Applicant’s patent eligibility analysis on pgs. 20-22, the remarks are a repeat of what has already been stated. Therefore, they have already been addressed above. Furthermore, the Examiner has provided an updated patent eligibility analysis below in light of the amended claims. Please see below.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding the newly added dependent claims on pgs. 22-23, the patent eligibility analysis has been updated to include the new claims. Please see below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 24-26, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-“said data management system, said data management system comprising” on pg. 2, line 2 should be “
-“asset state parameter” pg. 2, line 27 and pg. 3, line 7 should be “RWA state parameter.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-“physical item” in lines 2 and 3 should be “physical good
-“geolocation of said physical” should be “geolocation of said physical item”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: “asset state parameter” should be “RWA state parameter.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 33-46 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claim 15 recites similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to both independent claims 1 and 15. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A data management system for (in claim 15 – enforcing state-dependent validity of a digital representation of) a real-world asset (RWA), comprising a physical item, said data management system, said data management system: at least one computing device associated with at least one blockchain platform, said at least one computing device having on-chain storage for maintaining a local copy of at least one distributed ledger that records transactions relating to said RWA; and at least one application program associated with the at least one blockchain platform, said at least one application program configured to:
receive initial state information associated with the RWA that has been captured by at least one data collection device, the initial state information derived from physical data associated with the RWA that is captured in real-time;
generate a machine-determined RWA state parameter derived from the physical data, the machine-determined RWA state parameter defining a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA within the data management system;
record on the at least one distributed ledger an initial RWA state transaction which correlates said initial state information to said RWA;
receive information identifying an initial controlling entity for said RWA;
record on the at least one distributed ledger an initial RWA controlling entity transaction which correlates said initial controlling entity to said RWA;
create an initial RWA token associated with the controlling entity that is configured to be circulated on said at least one blockchain platform, wherein said initial RWA token comprises metadata comprising the asset state parameter; and
authorize, only when the RWA token is verified to exist in a validated state which satisfies at least one predefined issuance criteria, one or more asset-related system actions comprising one or more of:
committing a state reference of the RWA token to the at least one distributed ledger,
updating one or more system-maintained state variables associated with the RW A token that represent the asset state parameter or a condition parameter of the RWA, and
enabling or disabling access to one or more application programming interfaces that expose the RWA token to a user device or the application program,
wherein a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token enables, restricts, or blocks authorization of the one or more asset-related system actions.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-C, E, and G-L recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the bolded claimed limitations can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Receiving an initial state information of an asset, generating a parameter of the asset based on such information to create a token of the asset for circulation, and tracking the token and/or exposing the token is a sales activity/behavior.
Claims 1 and 15 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
The generic computing components “a data management system,” “at least one computing device,” and “at least one application program” of limitation A, “at least one data collection device” of limitation B, “machine-determined” of limitation C,” “one or more application programming interfaces” in limitation K, and “at least one physical state acquisition device,” “at least one user device,” in claim 15 are all recited at a high-level of generality such that the abstract idea are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
Limitations A and G recite “at least one blockchain platform” and “on-chain storage for maintaining a local copy of at least one distributed ledger that records transactions relating to said RWA,” Limitation I recites “at least one distributed ledger,” and claim 15 recites “a distributed ledger control system” as additional elements. Merely reciting performing some operations on the blockchain platform and/or distributed ledger is a general usage of a data structure. When these additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere steps to implement an abstract idea on a data structure. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Limitations D and F are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they do not meaningfully limit the claim. Recording on the at least one distributed ledger the said transactions do not meaningfully limit how the initial RWA token is created.
Claims 1 and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. Furthermore, electronic recordkeeping and storing information (limitations D and F) have been recognized by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “electronic recordkeeping,” Alice and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 2, 18, 35, 41-42, and 44 provide further context on said RWA or initial RWA token. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5-7, 14, 16, and 33-34 provide further context on the state information. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 11 are related to a subsequent controlling entity. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 9-10 are related to creating a subsequent RWA token and decommissioning the initial RWA token. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 12 and 13 recite the additional element(s) “interact with one or more smart contracts on the at least one blockchain platform…” However, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they are no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use see MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, “to distribute a programmable royalty to an original owner of said RWA in response to transfer of ownership of said initial RWA token” and “to fractionalize ownership rights in said initial RWA token” are intended results such that they do not meaningfully limit the interaction with the one or more smart contracts. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 36 is related to executing a trade of the initial RWA token. The limitation merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 37 recite the additional element “a machine learning model is specially-configured based on a learned trading strategy.” However, the additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” (or 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). Therefore, when the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 38 further characterizes an IoT device, which is an additional element. However, the additional element is still recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” (or 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). Therefore, when the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 39-40 further characterizes the at least one application program with at least one smart contract. However, the additional element is still recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” (or 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). Therefore, when the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 43 and 46 provide further context on the predefined issuance criteria. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 45 provides further context on the physical condition data. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-16, 18, and 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “the machine-determined RWA (asset) state parameter defining a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA.” The instant specification does not disclose or suggest that the state parameter defines a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA. The specification discloses creating digital twins or copies of the corresponding product, i.e. RWA [00102], [00249], however, there is no disclosure that suggests a parameter that defines a validation state of the digital twin or copy corresponding to the RWA. [00134] also discloses “asset status” of an NFT, i.e. the digital representation of the RWA. However, this does not provide sufficient support for “the machine-determined RWA (asset) state parameter defining a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA” since there is no further disclosure on how the “asset status” defines a validation state of the NFT representing the RWA. Therefore, amended claim 1 introduces new matter.
Amended claims 1 and 15 recite the following limitations “authorize, only when the RWA token is verified to exist in a validated state which satisfies at least one predefined issuance criteria, one or more asset-related system actions comprising one or more of: committing a state reference of the RWA token to the at least one distributed ledger, updating one or more system-maintained state variables associated with the RWA token that represent the asset state parameter or a condition parameter of the RWA, and enabling or disabling access to one or more application programming interfaces that expose the RWA token to a user device or the application program, wherein a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token enables, restricts, or blocks authorization of the one or more asset-related system actions.” The instant specification does not provide adequate disclosure for the newly amended limitations. The instant specification has provided a few uses cases of the invention, such as real estate [00226], commodities [00233], luxury goods [00241], and financial products [00270]. However, the varying disclosed uses cases do not appear to clearly support the amended claim language such that one of ordinary skill in the art can conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending the claims such that it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, or provide specification citations in the instant specification that provides adequate support for the newly amended limitations.
Claims 2, 5-14, 16, 18, and 33-46 depend from claims 1 and 15. They do not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim 40 recites “the at least one application program comprises at least
one smart contract that is configured to restrict or block authorization of the one or more asset
related system actions…” The instant specification discloses the smart contract controlling circulation of said initial RWA token in [00394]. However, disclosing controlling circulation is not adequate disclosure for restricting or blocking authorization based on a change in the validation state. Therefore, claim 40 introduces new matter.
Claim 43 depends from claim 40. It does not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, it is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim 45 recites “wherein the physical condition data captured in real time comprises attestation data cryptographically signed by the at least one physical state acquisition device.” The instant specification does not provide any disclosure that suggests the physical condition data comprises attestation data signed by the physical state acquisition device, or IoT. Therefore, claim 45 introduces new matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-16, 18, 33-36, and 39-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paya et al. US Patent 11,501,370 (herein as “Paya”) in view of Eavy U.S. 2024/0096118, and further in view of Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”).
Re Claims 1 and 15, Paya discloses a data management system for a real-world asset (RWA) comprising a physical item, said data management system, said data management system comprising: at least one computing device associated with at least one blockchain platform Fig. 1, user device 105a-N, said at least one computing device having on-chain storage for maintaining a local copy of at least one distributed ledger that records transactions relating to said RWA Fig. 1, transaction ledger 115a-N; and at least one application program associated with the at least one blockchain platform, said at least one application program configured to Fig. 28A:
receive initial state information associated with the RWA that has been captured by at least one data collection device, […] Col. 14, lines 50-51: “digital assets can represent anything from loyalty points to vouchers and IOUs to actual objects in the physical world,” Col. 87, line 64 – Col. 88, line 1: “receives, from a user device, transaction instructions and one or more transaction parameters…the transactions parameters include on[e] or more of (1) digital asset strike price”;
record on the at least one distributed ledger an initial RWA state transaction which correlates said initial state information to said RWA Col. 25, line 45: “confirm transactions by adding them to a ledger 115”;
receive information identifying an initial controlling entity for said RWA Col. 62, lines 32-34: “The exchange computer system may…receive digital wallet information…associated with the seller,” Col. 213, lines 23-24: “the one or more origin digital asset accounts may correspond to a trust custody account”;
record on the at least one distributed ledger an initial RWA controlling entity transaction which correlates said initial controlling entity to said RWA (Col. 33, lines 14-17: “custodial wallets may be segregated custodial wallets, in which digital assets for a specific client is held using one or more unique digital asset addresses maintained by the custodial service,” Col. 45, lines 62-63: use an electronic ledger to track digital asset ownership for each exchange customer);
create an initial RWA token associated with the controlling entity that is configured to be circulated on said at least one blockchain platform, […] Col. 114, lines 8-13: “the token creation instruction module 1865 may include instructions on how to create new digital asset tokens within pre-approved token supply limits and how to assign newly created or “minted” tokens to specific designated public addresses or contract addresses on the underlying blockchain.”
Examiner notes “which can be circulated on said at least one blockchain platform” is an intended use. It does not meaningfully limit how the initial RWA token is created. Therefore, it cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2103(I)(C).
However, Paya does not explicitly disclose
the initial state information derived from physical data associated with the RWA that is captured in real-time;
generate a machine-determined RWA state parameter derived from the physical data, the machine-determined RWA state parameter defining a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA within the data management system;
wherein said initial RWA token comprises metadata comprising the asset state parameter.
Eavy discloses systems and methods for image-assisted identification of property changes. Specifically, Eavy discloses
the initial state information derived from physical data associated with the RWA that is captured in real-time [0030] – “Internet of Things (IoT) device to capture a state of the property at a first time…The process my involve scanning the layout of a space, structure/building…”;
generate a machine-determined RWA state parameter derived from the physical data, the machine-determined RWA state parameter defining a validation state of a digital object representing the RWA within the data management system ([0032] – “Embodiments may be used…to assess a collateral value (i.e. state parameter) when the property is being used for a loan,” the captured state of the property in images/data form is analogous to a digital object representing the RWA, i.e. the property. The data is captured using a device [0030], therefore, the parameter is “machine-determined.”);
wherein said initial RWA token comprises metadata comprising the asset state parameter [0030] – “tagging the space in a larger universe of data (enabling search of units, analytics, etc.), effectively collecting metadata,” [0031] – “the collected data may be committed to a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain) to prevent repudiation.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of the initial state information comprising physical data of the RWA, generating a machine-determined RWA state parameter based on the physical data of the RWA, and collecting and recording metadata of the RWA in Eavy. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable and improve trust between the parties participating in a transaction involving the asset Eavy, [0002].
However, Paya in view of Eavy do not explicitly teach
authorize, only when the RWA token is verified to exist in a validated state which satisfies at least one predefined issuance criteria, one or more asset-related system actions comprising one or more of:
committing a state reference of the RWA token to the at least one distributed ledger,
updating one or more system-maintained state variables associated with the RWA token that represent the asset state parameter or a condition parameter of the RWA, and
enabling or disabling access to one or more application programming interfaces that expose the RWA token to a user device or the application program,
wherein a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token enables, restricts, or blocks authorization of the one or more asset-related system actions.
Yantis discloses a tokenization platform. Specifically, Yantis discloses
authorize, only when the RWA token is verified to exist in a validated state which satisfies at least one predefined issuance criteria ([0849] – “platform 100…verifies the validity of the token and/or the ownership of the token (i.e. predefined issuance criteria). Once verified, the user is granted permission to redeem the token), one or more asset-related system actions comprising one or more of:
committing a state reference of the RWA token to the at least one distributed ledger,
updating one or more system-maintained state variables associated with the RWA token that represent the asset state parameter or a condition parameter of the RWA, and
enabling or disabling access to one or more application programming interfaces that expose the RWA token to a user device or the application program ([0849] – “the platform may email a link to download the digital item to the user’s email account,” i.e. enable access that expose the token to a user device, [0856] – “the platform 100 includes an API system 106 that manages one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) of the platform, so as to expose the APIs to one or more related applications”),
wherein a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token enables, restricts, or blocks authorization of the one or more asset-related system actions ([0851] – “when the expiry is reached, the token may be deemed invalid,” becoming invalid is a change in the validation state, [0890] – a token that expires is no longer redeemable, i.e. blocked from enabling access to the token).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of authorizing one or more of the asset-related actions in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the token is valid for transactions, thereby providing flexible, reliable, and convenient transactions Yantis, [0004].
Re Claims 2 and 35, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis wherein said RWA is a physical good, and wherein said at least one data collection device is a hardware-based physical state acquisition device Paya, Col. 14, lines 50-51: “digital assets can represent anything from loyalty points to vouchers and IOUs to actual objects in the physical world,” Col. 87, line 64 – Col. 88, line 1: “receives, from a user device, transaction instructions and one or more transaction parameters…the transactions parameters include on[e] or more of (1) digital asset strike price”
Re Claim 5, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said initial state information corresponds to at least one of a physical condition of said RWA or a location of said RWA Eavy, [0030] – “state of the property.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of the initial state information comprising physical condition of said RWA in Eavy. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable and improve trust between the parties participating in a transaction involving the asset Eavy, [0002].
Examiner notes claim 5 is considered non-functional descriptive material since the content of the initial state information does not meaningfully limit the structure of the data management system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Re Claim 6, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is further configured to receive from the at least one data collection device subsequent state information associated with said RWA Paya, Col. 25, lines 18-19: “the value of the fiat-backed digital asset may fluctuate with the value of the assets backing the fiat-backed digital assets,” and record on the at least one distributed ledger a subsequent RWA state transaction which correlates said subsequent state information to said RWA Paya, Col. 25, lines 19-21: “The underlying value of the fiat-backed digital asset…may be updated in real-time.”
Re Claim 7, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 6, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said subsequent state information corresponds to at least one of a change in physical condition of said RWA or a change in location of said RWA Eavy, [0030] – “At a second time…capture an exit state of the property.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of the subsequent state information comprising a change in physical condition of said RWA in Eavy. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable and improve trust between the parties participating in a transaction involving the asset Eavy, [0002].
Examiner notes claim 7 is considered non-functional descriptive material since the content of the subsequent state information does not meaningfully limit the structure of the data management system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Re Claims 8 and 11, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 7, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is configured to receive information corresponding to a subsequent controlling entity for said RWA and record on the at least one distributed ledger a subsequent custody transaction which correlates said subsequent controlling entity to said RWA Paya, Col. 37, lines 12-17.
Re Claim 9, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 6, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is further configured to create a subsequent RWA token for circulation on said at least one blockchain platform, wherein said subsequent RWA token reflects the subsequent state information (Paya, Col. 110, lines 26-27: “limit the conditions under which tokens may be created,” i.e. “reflects the subsequent state information,” Paya, Col. 117, lines 54-56: “a digital asset token issuer system increases the total supply of the digital asset token,” i.e. “for circulation”).
Re Claim 10, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 9, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application is further configured to selectively decommission said initial RWA token (Paya, Col. 137, lines 10-14: “destroying and/or burning one or more issued tokens of the digital asset token…token being exchanged may be burned once the token is exchanged for fiat,” i.e. “selectively”).
Re Claims 14, 16, and 33, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the initial state information corresponds to at least one of an initial physical condition of said RWA (Claim 33 – an initial condition of the physical item and at least one of…), an initial geolocation of said RWA, and an initial compliance status of said RWA Eavy, [0030] – “Internet of Things (IoT) device to capture a state of the property at a first time (i.e. initial physical condition of said RWA)…The process my involve scanning the layout of a space, structure/building…Imperfections, defects, and fixes are part of the structure and part of the agreement”, i.e. an initial compliance status of said RWA).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of the initial state information corresponds to an initial physical condition and compliance status of the RWA in Eavy. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable and improve trust between the parties participating in a transaction involving the asset Eavy, [0002].
Examiner notes claims 14, 16, and 33 are considered non-functional descriptive material since the content of the initial state information does not meaningfully limit the structure of the data management system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Re Claim 18, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the distributed ledger control system of claim 15, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said initial RWA token is dynamically linked to said RWA Paya, Col. 14, lines 49-51.
Re Claim 34, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 2, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the initial state information corresponds to a physical attribute of the physical item Eavy, [0030] – “Internet of Things (IoT) device to capture a state of the property at a first time…The process my involve scanning the layout of a space, structure/building…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of the initial state information corresponds to a physical attribute of the physical item in Eavy. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable and improve trust between the parties participating in a transaction involving the asset Eavy, [0002].
Examiner notes claim 34 is considered non-functional descriptive material since the content of the initial state information does not meaningfully limit the structure of the data management system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Re Claim 36, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is further configured to
automatically execute a trade of the initial RWA token based at least in part on the asset state parameter of the initial RWA token associated with the RWA Paya, Col. 88, lines 11-18: “generates transaction rules for automatic digital asset transactions based at least [on] the one or more received transaction parameters and the received transaction instructions…rules include…to perform a transaction when one or more specified conditions are met or not met,” lines 32-34: “conditions include determining at least one of whether the digital asset price has reached or crossed a threshold value.”
Re Claim 39, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the at least one application program comprises at least one smart contract that is configured to enable the one or more asset related system actions when a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token indicates that asset state information corresponds to a current verified condition of the real world asset Yantis, [0843] – “smart contract that, for example, provides a set of verifiable conditions that must be satisfied in order to self-execute a transaction,” [0856] – “the API system 106 may include a smart contract API.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of at least one smart contract that is configured to enable the one or more asset related system actions when a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token indicates that asset state information corresponds to a current verified condition of the real world asset in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the transactions are only allowed when conditions are met, thereby ensuring flexible, reliable and convenient transactions Yantis, [0004].
Re Claim 40, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the at least one application program comprises at least one smart contract that is configured to restrict or block authorization of the one or more asset related system actions when a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token indicates that asset state information associated with the real world asset fails to satisfy the predefined issuance criteria, or has been superseded by subsequently received asset state information requiring revalidation (Yantis, [0843] – “smart contract that, for example, provides a set of verifiable conditions that must be satisfied in order to self-execute a transaction,” thereby suggesting that conditions that are not satisfied would restrict the transaction from executing, [0856] – “the API system 106 may include a smart contract API”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of at least one smart contract that is configured to restrict or block authorization of the one or more asset related system actions when a change in the validation state associated with the RWA token indicates that asset state information associated with the real world asset fails to satisfy the predefined issuance criteria in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the transactions are only allowed when conditions are met, thereby ensuring flexible, reliable and convenient transactions Yantis, [0004].
Re Claims 41 and 44, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said RWA comprises a physical good comprising at least one of a luxury good, a collectible, a consumer product, an industrial component, or a commodity lot Paya, Col. 14, lines 50-51.
Re Claim 42, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the RWA is physically associated with an authentication mechanism comprising a unique identifier, and wherein receiving the initial state information captured by the at least one data collection device comprises receiving the unique identifier from the at least one data collection device Yantis, [0963] – “The item information may include a unique identifier,” [0033] – “obtaining…a unique identifier.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of receiving the unique identifier in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure that the unique digital token provides a unique digital representation of the unique unit of the real-world object Yantis, [0054].
Re Claim 43, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 40, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach further comprising verifying, by the at least one computing device, that the RWA satisfies predefined issuance criteria including at least one of (i) authenticity verification through an authentication mechanism, (ii) verification of the initial controlling entity, (iii) compliance status verification, or (iv) integrity verification of the initial state information, and wherein creating the initial RWA token is performed only upon successful verification that the RWA satisfies the predefined issuance criteria (Yantis, [0843] – “define conditions that must be verified to generate new tokens,” [0942] – “authentication system 804 may be used to authenticate an item that is offered for sale or provided for collateral,” i.e. authenticity verification through an authentication mechanism, see also [0943]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of verifying, by the at least one computing device, that the RWA satisfies predefined issuance criteria and creating the initial RWA token is performed only upon successful verification that the RWA satisfies the predefined issuance criteria in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to preclude counterfeit items from being on the platform Yantis, [0943].
Re Claim 45, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the distributed ledger control system of claim 15, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein the physical condition data captured in real time comprises attestation data cryptographically signed by the at least one physical state acquisition device Paya, Col. 145, lines 43-48.
Re Claim 46, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the distributed ledger control system of claim 15, and Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach further comprising verifying that the RWA satisfies predefined issuance criteria including integrity verification of the physical condition data captured in real time, and wherein at least one of (i) recording the initial RWA state transaction Yantis, [0943] –“performs the authentication…based on the information uploaded by the user (i.e. in real time)…authenticity determination may result in an item being kept on or removed from the platform” or (ii) creating the initial RWA token is performed only upon successful verification that the RWA satisfies the predefined issuance criteria.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paya in view of Eavy’s digital asset exchange system with the teachings of verifying that the RWA satisfies predefined issuance criteria including integrity verification of the physical condition data captured in real time and recording the initial RWA state transaction only upon successful verification that the RWA satisfies the predefined issuance criteria in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination to preclude counterfeit items from being on the platform Yantis, [0943].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paya et al. US Patent 11,501,370 (herein as “Paya”) in view of Eavy U.S. 2024/0096118, and in view of Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pardo U.S. 2023/0034621.
Re Claim 12, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is further configured to interact with one or more smart contracts on the at least one blockchain platform […] Paya, Col. 14, lines 61-65.
However, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis do not explicitly teach
to distribute a programmable royalty to an original owner of said RWA in response to a transfer of ownership of said initial RWA token.
Pardo discloses minting, transfer and management of non-fungible tokens in sets. Specifically, Pardo discloses
to distribute a programmable royalty to an original owner of said RWA in response to a transfer of ownership of said initial RWA token [0222] – “the original owner can be compensated and given a royalty each time the NFT 120 is sold. The compensation can be defined in the smart contract 150 or the rules 124.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis’ smart contract(s) to distribute a programmable royalty to an original owner of said RWA in response to a transfer of ownership of said initial RWA token in Pardo. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow an original owner of an asset/token to generate additional revenue.
Re Claim 13, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis further teach wherein said at least one application program is further configured to interact with one or more smart contracts on the at least one blockchain platform […] Paya, Col. 14, lines 61-65.
However, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis do not explicitly teach
to fractionalize ownership rights in said initial RWA token.
Pardo discloses minting, transfer and management of non-fungible tokens in sets. Specifically, Pardo discloses
to fractionalize ownership rights in said initial RWA token [0114] – “When an NFT is fractionalized, the NFT is first locked in a smart contract. That smart contract then splits the ERC-721 token into multiple fractions…Each fraction represents partial ownership of the NFT.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis’ smart contract(s) to fractionalize ownership rights in said initial RWA token in Pardo. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow partial ownership of the item or digital asset represented by the NFT, thereby allowing a more accurate depiction of ownership rights of an item or digital asset.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paya et al. US Patent 11,501,370 (herein as “Paya”) in view of Eavy U.S. 2024/0096118, and in view of Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Silver et al. U.S. 2022/0180414 (herein as “Silver”).
Re Claim 37, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 36, however, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis do not explicitly teach wherein a machine learning model is specially-configured based on a learned trading strategy to automatically execute the trade.
Silver discloses an ambient transaction system for facilitating various transaction types. Specifically, Silver discloses
wherein a machine learning model is specially-configured based on a learned trading strategy to automatically execute the trade [0035] – “the transaction platform 102 may implement machine-learning techniques to learn transaction patterns…and enable prediction and automatic execution of future transactions.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis’ digital asset exchange system with the teachings of using a machine-learning model to automatically execute the trade in Silver. One would be motivated to make this combination to optimize features in an informed manner to meet the needs of participants of the transaction platform Silver, [0035].
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paya et al. US Patent 11,501,370 (herein as “Paya”) in view of Eavy U.S. 2024/0096118, and in view of Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. U.S. 2021/0110275 (herein as “Chen”).
Re Claim 38, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis teach the data management system of claim 1, however, Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis do not explicitly teach wherein the initial state information comprises a physical condition of the RWA captured in real-time by an IoT device which comprises a satellite imaging device for capturing the physical data in real-time imagery data.
Chen discloses systems and methods of generating interpretive data associated with data sets. Specifically, Chen discloses
wherein the initial state information comprises a physical condition of the RWA captured in real-time by an IoT device which comprises a satellite imaging device for capturing the physical data in real-time imagery data [0054] – estimating property value based on satellite image data.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paya in view of Eavy and Yantis’ IoT device with the teachings of a satellite imaging device for capturing the physical data in real-time imagery data in Chen. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide additional visual features that may improve prediction accuracy and price estimation Chen, [0045].
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 CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights