DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/27/2025, the Pre-liminary Amendment filed on 08/27/2025 and the Specification Amendment filed on 08/27/2025.
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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 08/27/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The 44 pages of marked-up Specification amendment include substantially more content than the originally filed 17 page Specification, also in bigger font, in the original PCT application. The newly submitted Specification substantially rewritten its entirety and that the added subject matter is not confined to identifiable discrete passages. For example, the content describing Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 along with other new elements (See paragraph 0002-0062, 0068, 0078-0178) in the new Specification are entirely undisclosed in the original Specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 21-40 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.
Claim 21 recites “receiving registration data, wherein users may register as individuals or family units with verifiable guardianship or trust documentation”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “users may register as individuals or family units with verifiable guardianship or trust documentation”. The Original Disclosure is silent on any registration process.
Claim 21 recites “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. The Original Disclosure is silent on a verification of registration data.
Claim 21 recites “generating compliance profiles for entities and users”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “generating compliance profiles for entities and users”. The Original Disclosure is silent on any generating of profile
Claim 21 recites “extracting and parsing usage records to identify consumption values and contribution metrics”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “extracting and parsing usage records to identify contribution metrics”. The Original Disclosure is silent on any contribution metrics, let alone tracking.
Claim 21 recites “storing parsed data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval”. The Original Disclosure is silent on database indexed by user identifier and time interval.
Claim 21 recites “generating a Consumer Earned Token (CETE) comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with restriction conditions and social-incentive hooks”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “a smart contract encoded with social-incentive hooks”. The Original Disclosure is silent on social-incentive hooks.
Claim 21 recites “transmitting the CETE to a private blockchain-based exchange, wherein CETEs are initially owned by consumers and restricted from peer-to-peer trading until conditions are satisfied”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “wherein CETEs are initially owned by consumers and restricted from peer-to-peer trading until conditions are satisfied”. The Original Disclosure is silent on such ownership restriction.
Claim 21 recites “recording usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “recording usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain”. The Original Disclosure only supports “recording transactions” and “system utilizes blockchain technology to securely store and manage the transactions and token balances for the consumer owners of the tokens”, not usage records and compliance profile.
Claim 22 recites “wherein a consumer registers as family units or an equivalent, with verifiable legal documentation and/or legal guardianship, family trust documentation or the international equivalents of the aforementioned documentation establishing a legal family entity or the equivalent for combined expenditures tracking”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on “verifiable legal documentation and/or legal guardianship, family trust documentation or the international equivalents of the aforementioned documentation”.
Claim 23 recites “wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables in-network entities to set terms and conditions for rewards through pledging to better control crime in distressed communities by enabling in- network consumer stake-holding within stated calendar periods, wherein the in-network entities perform a societal incentive weighting tied to crime reduction, literacy, health, or carbon pledges”. The Original Disclosure only supports proving tools to set terms and conditions for reward, “CETEs may likely case communities to raise standards of living as peer pressures evolve to reveal mutual dependencies and mutual benefits from lower crime rates, higher moral standards, and higher literacy rates to name a few potential goals among the business entities and the new and true stakeholders of the economies, we the people” and entity pledging. However, the specific causal relationship of “enables in-network entities to set terms and conditions for rewards through pledging to better control crime in distressed communities by enabling in- network consumer stake-holding within stated calendar periods, wherein the in-network entities perform a societal incentive weighting tied to crime reduction, literacy, health, or carbon pledges” is not supported.
Claim 24 recites “wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables a nation-state to overlay this novel digital infrastructure over or alongside its existing economic superstructure to better allocate the wealth of the nation to the in- network consumers who support the economy through consumerism”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on such feature.
Claim 26 recites “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. The Original Disclosure is silent on a verification of registration data.
Claim 26 recites “generating, by the computer, a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on generating profile.
Claim 26 recites “extracting, by the computer, usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on declared contribution metrics.
Claim 26 recites “parsing, by the computer, the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on parsing records to identify timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics.
Claim 26 recites “storing, by the computer, the parsed usage data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on database indexed by user identifier and time interval.
Claim 26 recites “recording, by the computer, the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support storing compliance profiles on a blockchain.
Claim 27 (similarly in claim 37) recites “executing, by the computer, a rule-based evaluation of operational metrics associated with the compliance profiles; generating, by the computer, a compliance alert in response to detecting a deviation from a predefined threshold; and transmitting, by the computer, the compliance alert to a supervisory computing device configured to receive compliance notifications”. However, Original Disclosure is silent on compliance profiles, generating alert and transmitting the alert to a supervisory device.
Claim 28 (similarly in claim 38) recites “retrieving, by the computer, updated compliance parameters from a remote data source hosted on a third-party server; and updating, by the computer, the region-specific rule set stored in a local memory”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on updated compliance parameters from a remote data source hosted on a third-party server or updating the region-specific rule set stored in a local memory.
Claim 29 (similarly in claim 39) recites “verifying, by the computer, identity credentials of a user using a multi-factor authentication protocol; encrypting, by the computer, the verified identity credentials using a cryptographic algorithm; and storing, by the computer, the encrypted identity credentials in a secure data store accessible to a compliance engine”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on verifying identity credentials, encrypting the credential or storing the identity credentials.
Claim 30 (similarly in claim 40) recites “wherein the extracting the usage records from the plurality of computing devices includes: receiving, by the computer, usage data from a point-of-interaction device; parsing, by the computer, the usage data to identify a source identifier, a timestamp, and a consumption value; and associating, by the computer, the parsed usage data with a user identifier”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on parsing usage data to identify a source identifier and a timestamp.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the calculating the reward metric includes: executing, by the computer, a mathematical model that applies a weighting factor to the consumption value based on a declared contribution metric associated with an entity; and generating, by the computer, a reward metric based on the weighted consumption value”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on a mathematical model that applies a weighting factor to the consumption value based on a declared contribution metric associated with an entity or generating a reward metric based on the weighted consumption value.
Claim 33 recites “executing, by the computer, a verification of a restriction condition associated with the digital token; and enabling, by the computer, the digital token to be listed on a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node in response to the restriction condition being satisfied”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on enabling the token to be listed in response to a verification of a restriction condition.
Claim 34 recites “recording, by the computer, a digital token event on a blockchain using a consensus operation selected from the group consisting of proof-of-stake and proof-of-work”. However, the is silent on a consensus operation selected from the group consisting of proof-of-stake and proof-of-work.
Claim 35 recites “generating, by the computer, an audit log comprising a timestamp, a token identifier, and a compliance status; and recording, by the computer, the audit log on a blockchain.”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on generating an audit log comprising a timestamp, a token identifier, and a compliance status.
Claim 36 recites “verify the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”. The Original Disclosure is silent on a verification of registration data.
Claim 36 recites “generate a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on generating profile.
Claim 36 recites “extract usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on declared contribution metrics.
Claim 26 recites “parse the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on parsing records to identify timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics.
Claim 36 recites “store the parsed usage data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on database indexed by user identifier and time interval.
Claim 36 recites “record the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support storing compliance profiles on a blockchain.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “better control crime” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “better” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “better allocate the wealth of the nation” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “better” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a plurality of processes and an apparatus, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 21 recites:
A computer-implemented method executed for managing digital tokens based on consumption activity, the method comprising:
receiving registration data, wherein users may register as individuals or family units with verifiable guardianship or trust documentation;
verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database;
generating compliance profiles for entities and users;
extracting and parsing usage records to identify consumption values and contribution metrics;
storing parsed data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval;
calculating reward metrics including family-unit aggregated expenditures;
generating a Consumer Earned Token (CETE) comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with restriction conditions and social-incentive hooks;
transmitting the CETE to a private blockchain-based exchange, wherein CETEs are initially owned by consumers and restricted from peer-to-peer trading until conditions are satisfied;
recording usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain.
Claim 22 recites:
wherein a consumer registers as family units or an equivalent, with verifiable legal documentation and/or legal guardianship, family trust documentation or the international equivalents of the aforementioned documentation establishing a legal family entity or the equivalent for combined expenditures tracking.
Claim 23 recites:
wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables in-network entities to set terms and conditions for rewards through pledging to better control crime in distressed communities by enabling in- network consumer stake-holding within stated calendar periods, wherein the in-network entities perform a societal incentive weighting tied to crime reduction, literacy, health, or carbon pledges.
Claim 24 recites:
wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables a nation-state to overlay this novel digital infrastructure over or alongside its existing economic superstructure to better allocate the wealth of the nation to the in- network consumers who support the economy through consumerism.
Claim 25 recites:
wherein the CETEs are restricted securities under Regulation D exemptions, non-speculative by design.
Claim 26 recites:
A computer-implemented method executed for managing digital tokens based on consumption activity, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer, registration data from a plurality of remote computing devices associated with entities and users via a network interface;
verifying, by the computer, the registration data against region-specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database;
generating, by the computer, a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints;
extracting, by the computer, usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics;
parsing, by the computer, the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics;
storing, by the computer, the parsed usage data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval;
calculating, by the computer, a reward metric based on the parsed usage data that correlates consumption activity with token generation parameters;
generating, by the computer, a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with conditional logic;
transmitting, by the computer, the digital token to a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node; and
recording, by the computer, the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain.
Claim 27 recites:
executing, by the computer, a rule-based evaluation of operational metrics associated with the compliance profiles; generating, by the computer, a compliance alert in response to detecting a deviation from a predefined threshold; and transmitting, by the computer, the compliance alert to a supervisory computing device configured to receive compliance notifications.
Claim 28 recites:
retrieving, by the computer, updated compliance parameters from a remote data source hosted on a third-party server; and updating, by the computer, the region-specific rule set stored in a local memory.
Claim 29 recites:
verifying, by the computer, identity credentials of a user using a multi-factor authentication protocol; encrypting, by the computer, the verified identity credentials using a cryptographic algorithm; and storing, by the computer, the encrypted identity credentials in a secure data store accessible to a compliance engine.
Claim 30 recites:
wherein the extracting the usage records from the plurality of computing devices includes: receiving, by the computer, usage data from a point-of-interaction device; parsing, by the computer, the usage data to identify a source identifier, a timestamp, and a consumption value; and associating, by the computer, the parsed usage data with a user identifier.
Claim 31 recites:
wherein the calculating the reward metric includes: executing, by the computer, a mathematical model that applies a weighting factor to the consumption value based on a declared contribution metric associated with an entity; and generating, by the computer, a reward metric based on the weighted consumption value.
Claim 32 recites:
wherein the generating digital token includes: assembling, by the computer, a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract; encoding, by the computer, the smart contract with a restriction condition; and assigning, by the computer, the digital token to a user account stored in a distributed ledger.
Claim 33 recites:
executing, by the computer, a verification of a restriction condition associated with the digital token; and enabling, by the computer, the digital token to be listed on a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node in response to the restriction condition being satisfied.
Claim 34 recites:
recording, by the computer, a digital token event on a blockchain using a consensus operation selected from the group consisting of proof-of-stake and proof-of-work.
Claim 35 recites:
generating, by the computer, an audit log comprising a timestamp, a token identifier, and a compliance status; and recording, by the computer, the audit log on a blockchain.
Claim 36 recites:
A system for managing digital tokens based on consumption activity, the system comprising:
a computer comprising a processor, configured to:
receive registration data from a plurality of remote computing devices associated with entities and users via a network interface;
verify the registration data against region-specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database;
generate a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints;
extract usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics;
parse the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics;
store the parsed usage data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval;
calculate a reward metric based on the parsed usage data that correlates consumption activity with token generation parameters;
generate a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with conditional logic;
transmit the digital token to a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node; and
record the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain.
Claim 37 recites:
wherein the computer is further configured to: execute a rule-based evaluation of operational metrics associated with the compliance profiles; generate a compliance alert in response to detecting a deviation from a predefined threshold; and transmit the compliance alert to a supervisory computing device configured to receive compliance notifications.
Claim 38 recites:
wherein the computer is further configured to: retrieve updated compliance parameters from a remote data source hosted on a third-party server; and update the region-specific rule set stored in the rule set database.
Claim 39 recites:
wherein the computer is further configured to: verify identity credentials of a user using a multi-factor authentication protocol; encrypt the verified identity credentials using a cryptographic algorithm; and store the encrypted identity credentials in a secure data store accessible to a compliance engine.
Claim 40 recites:
wherein the computer is further configured to: receive usage data from a point-of-interaction device; parse the usage data to identify a source identifier, a timestamp, and a consumption value; and associate the parsed usage data with a user identifier.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers generating consumption reward token that can be exchanged as security. Generating security manages contractual agreements and is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “computer” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receiving registration data, wherein users may register as individuals or family units with verifiable guardianship or trust documentation” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving registration data;
the limitation “verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of verifying registration data against region-specific compliance parameters;
the limitation “generating compliance profiles for entities and users” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating compliance profiles for entities and users;
the limitation “extracting and parsing usage records to identify consumption values and contribution metrics” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of extracting and parsing usage record to identify consumption values and contribution metrics;
the limitation “storing parsed data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing the parsed data;
the limitation “calculating reward metrics including family-unit aggregated expenditures” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of calculating reward metrics;
the limitation “generating a Consumer Earned Token (CETE) comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with restriction conditions and social-incentive hooks” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating a token comprising data structure and a smart contract;
the limitation “transmitting the CETE to a private blockchain-based exchange, wherein CETEs are initially owned by consumers and restricted from peer-to-peer trading until conditions are satisfied” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the token to a private exchange;
the limitation “recording usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of recording the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain;
the limitation “wherein a consumer registers as family units or an equivalent, with verifiable legal documentation and/or legal guardianship, family trust documentation or the international equivalents of the aforementioned documentation establishing a legal family entity or the equivalent for combined expenditures tracking” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of registering a consumer as family units or an equivalent with legal documentation;
the limitation “wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables in-network entities to set terms and conditions for rewards through pledging to better control crime in distressed communities by enabling in- network consumer stake-holding within stated calendar periods, wherein the in-network entities perform a societal incentive weighting tied to crime reduction, literacy, health, or carbon pledges” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of enabling entities to set terms and conditions for reward;
the limitation “wherein a software as a service system is configured to provide a computer-managed system that enables a nation-state to overlay this novel digital infrastructure over or alongside its existing economic superstructure to better allocate the wealth of the nation to the in- network consumers who support the economy through consumerism” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of enabling a nation-state to overlay the token to existing economic superstructure;
the limitation “wherein the CETEs are restricted securities under Regulation D exemptions, non-speculative by design” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the token under Reg D exemption;
the limitation “receiving, by a computer, registration data from a plurality of remote computing devices associated with entities and users via a network interface” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving registration data from entities and users;
the limitation “verifying, by the computer, the registration data against region-specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of verifying the registration data against region specific compliance parameters;
the limitation “generating, by the computer, a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating compliance profile for each entity and user satisfying compliance parameters;
the limitation “extracting, by the computer, usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of extracting usage record from the users associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics ;
the limitation “parsing, by the computer, the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of parsing the usage records to identify the values and metrics;
the limitation “storing, by the computer, the parsed usage data in a structured database indexed by user identifier and time interval” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing the parsed usage data;
the limitation “calculating, by the computer, a reward metric based on the parsed usage data that correlates consumption activity with token generation parameters” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of calculating the reward metric based on the parsed usage data;
the limitation “generating, by the computer, a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with conditional logic” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating a token comprising data structure and a smart contract;
the limitation “transmitting, by the computer, the digital token to a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the token to a private exchange platform;
the limitation “recording, by the computer, the usage records and compliance profiles on a blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of recording the usage records and compliance profile on a blockchain;
the limitation “executing, by the computer, a rule-based evaluation of operational metrics associated with the compliance profiles; generating, by the computer, a compliance alert in response to detecting a deviation from a predefined threshold; and transmitting, by the computer, the compliance alert to a supervisory computing device configured to receive compliance notifications” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of executing a rule-based evaluation, generating an alert in response to detecting a deviation from a predefined threshold and transmitting the alert to a supervisory entity;
the limitation “retrieving, by the computer, updated compliance parameters from a remote data source hosted on a third-party server; and updating, by the computer, the region-specific rule set stored in a local memory” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of retrieving updated compliance parameter from a data source and updating the region-specific rule set;
the limitation “verifying, by the computer, identity credentials of a user using a multi-factor authentication protocol; encrypting, by the computer, the verified identity credentials using a cryptographic algorithm; and storing, by the computer, the encrypted identity credentials in a secure data store accessible to a compliance engine” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of verifying identity credential of a user;
the limitation “wherein the extracting the usage records from the plurality of computing devices includes: receiving, by the computer, usage data from a point-of-interaction device; parsing, by the computer, the usage data to identify a source identifier, a timestamp, and a consumption value; and associating, by the computer, the parsed usage data with a user identifier” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving usage data from a point of interaction, parsing the usage data and associating the parsed usage data with a user identifier;
the limitation “wherein the calculating the reward metric includes: executing, by the computer, a mathematical model that applies a weighting factor to the consumption value based on a declared contribution metric associated with an entity; and generating, by the computer, a reward metric based on the weighted consumption value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of executing a mathematical model to calculate the reward metric based on weighted consumption value;
the limitation “wherein the generating digital token includes: assembling, by the computer, a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract; encoding, by the computer, the smart contract with a restriction condition; and assigning, by the computer, the digital token to a user account stored in a distributed ledger” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of assembling the token to comprise data structure and a smart contract; encoding the smart contract with restriction condition and assigning the toke to a user account;
the limitation “executing, by the computer, a verification of a restriction condition associated with the digital token; and enabling, by the computer, the digital token to be listed on a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node in response to the restriction condition being satisfied” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of executing a verification of restriction condition associated with the token, enabling the token to be listed on private exchange in response to condition being satisfied;
the limitation “recording, by the computer, a digital token event on a blockchain using a consensus operation selected from the group consisting of proof-of-stake and proof-of-work” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of recording the token event on blockchain;
the limitation “generating, by the computer, an audit log comprising a timestamp, a token identifier, and a compliance status; and recording, by the computer, the audit log on a blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a computer to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating an audit log and recording the audit log;
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory”, “secure computing node”, “database”, “distributed ledger” and/or “blockchain” are generically recited as mere tools to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “a plurality of computing device” are generically recited to the source of data to be extracted by a step of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “via network interface” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting.
The additional element(s) of “software as a service” are generically recited as business entity to provide service by the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “smart contract” are generically recited as component of the token generated by the Judicial Exception.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “digital”, “blockchain-based”, “computing device”, “server” are appended to abstract elements such as “token”, “exchange platform”, “supervisory” and “third party” respectively, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to generate security amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Note
Based on prior searches, the prior art deemed the closest to the instant claims is Harrison. (US 20200034869) Harrison discloses a generating reward token based on consumption to activity. Harrison, however, failed to disclose “receiving registration data, wherein users may register as individuals or family units with verifiable guardianship or trust documentation; verifying the registration data against region- specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”, “generating compliance profiles for entities and users; extracting and parsing usage records to identify consumption values and contribution metrics”, “generating a Consumer Earned Token (CETE) comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with restriction conditions and social-incentive hooks” and “transmitting the CETE to a private blockchain-based exchange, wherein CETEs are initially owned by consumers and restricted from peer-to-peer trading until conditions are satisfied” in claim 1. Harrison also failed to disclose “verifying, by the computer, the registration data against region-specific compliance parameters stored in a rule set database”, “generating, by the computer, a compliance profile for each entity and user whose registration data satisfies the compliance parameters, wherein each compliance profile comprises a unique identifier and a set of operational constraints; extracting, by the computer, usage records from a plurality of computing devices associated with consumption activity and declared contribution metrics; parsing, by the computer, the usage records to identify consumption values, timestamps, source identifiers, and contribution metrics”, “generating, by the computer, a digital token comprising a data structure and a smart contract encoded with conditional logic” and “transmitting, by the computer, the digital token to a private blockchain-based exchange platform hosted on a secure computing node” in claims 26 and 36. No combination of prior art was found to render obvious of the claims without applying improper hindsight. As such, claims 21-40 are novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights