DETAILED ACTION
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/29/2025.
Claims 1-16 have been filed by the applicant.
Claims 5-6 and 11-16 are not elected.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 7-10 in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“data manager configured to collect” in claim 1. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“blockchain registrator configured to register” in claim 1. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“a communicator configured to be in communication” in claim 1. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“data manager configured to generate” in claim 2. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“blockchain registrator is configured to pay” in claim 3. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“embedded wallet is configured to receive” in claim 4. The specification does not disclose sufficient structure for performing this function.
“a display configured to display” in claim 7. The specification provide sufficient structure for display being a screen [0023].
“a web page outputter configured to output” in claim 7. The specification provide sufficient structure for outputter being a screen [0024].
“a button display configured to display” in claim 7. The specification provide sufficient structure for display being a screen [0023].
“a linkage display configured to display” in claim 8. The specification provide sufficient structure for display being a screen [0024].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-4 and 7-10 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. As stated above in 112(f), the specification fails to provide sufficient structures for items a-f listed under “Claim Interpretation” above. It is not clear what are the structures that perform these function.
Claim 1-4 and 7-10 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. Claim 1 recites “a device comprising: a server”. However, the specification does not disclose a device comprising a server, instead the specification discloses a device and a server being separate entity at lease in [0052] and Fig. 1. It is not clear how the device is structured.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 7-10 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. As stated above in 112(f), the specification fails to provide corresponding structure and algorithm for performing the function of a-f listed under “Claim Interpretation” above.
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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 7-10 are directed to a device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The limitations of independent claim 1, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A device for collecting usage data of each user and trading the usage data using a blockchain network, the device comprising:
a data manager configured to collect raw usage data of the device and select marketable data from the raw usage data;
a blockchain registrator configured to register the marketable data in the blockchain network; and
a server configured to provide a service for trading the usage data and a communicator configured to be in communication with the blockchain network
Limitations A through D under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of personal interactions between people. Other than reciting generic computer hardware, nothing in the claim element differentiates the limitation from processes of managing personal interactions between people. Therefore, limitations A through D recite an abstract idea, as highlighted above, that is consistent with following instructions aspects of certain methods of organizing human activities.
Accordingly, claim 1, recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements in bold below:
A device for collecting usage data of each user and trading the usage data using a blockchain network, the device comprising:
a data manager configured to collect raw usage data of the device and select marketable data from the raw usage data;
a blockchain registrator configured to register the marketable data in the blockchain network; and
a server configured to provide a service for trading the usage data and a communicator configured to be in communication with the blockchain network
The additional element(s) in limitation A-D are recited at a high level of generality. The “data manager”, “registrator” and “communicator” elements of limitations B-D, as discussed under §112(f) above, are merely software “instructions” that as an ordered combination with limitation A amount to a computer programmed to carry out the abstract idea. The “server” merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea, recited at a high level of generality. The “blockchain network” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As such, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment defined by high level recitations of a computer and the Internet. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to 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 the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 further recite generating summary information and select marketable data based on purchase request which further recites the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 further recite pay transaction cost using a balance which further recites the abstract idea. The additional elements of “embedded wallet” and “cryptocurrency” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 further recite receiving transaction cost which further recites the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 further recite additional elements of a display which outputs webpage for trading usage data. The additional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 further recite additional element of display linkage information. The additional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 further recite additional element of displaying purchase request on webpage. The additional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 further recite additional element of a sensor senses a number of users. The additional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount 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, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20120011031 A1), and further in view of TOGAME (US 20230419315 A1).
With respect to claim 1:
Lewis teaches (in italic):
a device for collecting usage data of each user and trading the usage data using a […] network, the device comprising: a data manager configured to collect raw usage data of the device and select marketable data from the raw usage data. (In one embodiment, the user data includes data obtained from use by each respective end user of the product. In another embodiment, the product is a user device comprising a communication device and a position identification unit to provide location data. In other embodiments, data relating to usage by each respective end user of a third-party service is collected by the marketplace. Data from all of these sources may be used to create user data or user profiles associated with a specific identified user, and all such data may be collected and stored by marketplace 123. User provided content 129 includes user data A and user data B (131, 132) that has been uploaded or otherwise obtained by marketplace 123. Data available for trade 150 may include one or more data reports 152 and 154 (data reports A and B). Data reports A and B may be formed by collecting various types of data from various end users. A customer may specify the type of data desired for a data report. A customer may use an Internet user interface (e.g., a webpage on a website) to select various desired data categories. Marketplace 123 then may offer data reports matching the desired categories for sale to the customer. In one embodiment, the customer may specify the desired data categories in advance of the collection of the user data from users. [0029-0032 0053-0056])
a server configured to provide a service for trading the usage data and a communicator configured to be in communication with the […] network. (In one embodiment, a web server is used to host a marketplace for the trading of data provided from a plurality of end users. User data is collected from each of the end users. [0026])
Lewis does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However,
TOGAME teaches:
blockchain network; a blockchain registrator configured to register the marketable data in the blockchain network. (Once such datasets are created on the distributed ledger, open technologies to may be used share encrypted version of the dataset and to prevent illegal copying of the dataset. For example, the disclosed system may create the NFT on a public distributed ledger based on whether the dataset satisfies conditions for a creation of NFT. The created NFT may be listed on a NFT marketplace associated with the public distributed ledger. [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis to utilize blockchain with the technique as disclosed by TOGAME to ensure a secure and tamper-proof database as TOGAME suggested [0014].
With respect to claim 2:
Lewis further teaches wherein the data manager is configured to generate summary information regarding the raw usage data, and select the marketable data based on a purchase request for the summary information. (Data from all of these sources may be used to create user data or user profiles associated with a specific identified user, and all such data may be collected and stored by marketplace 123. User provided content 129 includes user data A and user data B (131, 132) that has been uploaded or otherwise obtained by marketplace 123. Data available for trade 150 may include one or more data reports 152 and 154 (data reports A and B). Data reports A and B may be formed by collecting various types of data from various end users. A customer may specify the type of data desired for a data report. A customer may use an Internet user interface (e.g., a webpage on a website) to select various desired data categories. Marketplace 123 then may offer data reports matching the desired categories for sale to the customer. In one embodiment, the customer may specify the desired data categories in advance of the collection of the user data from users.[0053-0056])
With respect to claim 3:
TOGAME further teaches further comprising an embedded wallet with cryptocurrency, wherein the blockchain registrator is configured to pay a first transaction cost incurred in the registration using a balance held by the embedded wallet. (The account may be, for example, a wallet account of the data user 132 on the distributed ledger 108 or a distributed ledger other than the distributed ledger 108. In an example, the account may be associated with a decentralized application (DApp) that may be linked to the distributed ledger 108. The DApp may include functions to search, list, and buy NFTs. [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis to utilizing blockchain with the technique as disclosed by TOGAME to ensure a secure and tamper-proof database as TOGAME suggested [0014].
With respect to claim 4:
TOGAME further teaches wherein the embedded wallet is configured to receive the first transaction cost from a purchaser of the marketable data. (The account may be, for example, a wallet account of the data user 132 on the distributed ledger 108 or a distributed ledger other than the distributed ledger 108. In an example, the account may be associated with a decentralized application (DApp) that may be linked to the distributed ledger 108. The DApp may include functions to search, list, and buy NFTs. The data collection system 102 may accept the purchase request if the purchase request satisfies terms associated with a sale of the NFT 128. Thereafter, a digital asset, such as money, digital fiat currency, cryptocurrency, or coupons may be transferred from the account of the data user 132 to an account of the data owner 130 or to an account of the data operator associated with the data collection system 102 as payment towards the purchase of the NFT 128. [0019 0073])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis to utilizing blockchain with the technique as disclosed by TOGAME to ensure a secure and tamper-proof database as TOGAME suggested [0014].
With respect to claim 7:
Lewis further teaches further comprising a display configured to display a screen thereon, wherein the display includes: a web page outputter configured to output a web page for trading the usage data; and a button display configured to display a button for selling the usage data on the web page when a sales agreement is input from each user. (As used herein, "marketplace" means a trading exchange or other data or computer system (e.g., a hosted website) that is electronically available to or accessible by buyers and/or sellers (e.g., over the Internet or by another online or networked form of access, or by wired or wireless access) for trading (e.g., purchasing or leasing of sets or groups of data). FIG. 4 shows an example of a user interface 400 used by an end user to register data sources (e.g., that provide user data for uploading) and to upload user data to online marketplace 123 according to one embodiment. [0024 0065])
With respect to claim 8:
TOGAME further teaches wherein the display further includes a linkage display configured to display linkage information for linking a digital wallet of each user with the data manager on the web page. (The account may be, for example, a wallet account of the data user 132 on the distributed ledger 108 or a distributed ledger other than the distributed ledger 108. In an example, the account may be associated with a decentralized application (DApp) that may be linked to the distributed ledger 108. The DApp may include functions to search, list, and buy NFTs. the NFT marketplace 110 may provide an option to the data user 132 to link a wallet associated with the data user 132 with the user identification. [0019 0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis to utilizing blockchain with the technique as disclosed by TOGAME to ensure a secure and tamper-proof database as TOGAME suggested [0014].
With respect to claim 9:
TOGAME further teaches wherein the display further includes a request display configured to display a purchase request generated by at least one seller on the web page. (The account may be, for example, a wallet account of the data user 132 on the distributed ledger 108 or a distributed ledger other than the distributed ledger 108. In an example, the account may be associated with a decentralized application (DApp) that may be linked to the distributed ledger 108. The DApp may include functions to search, list, and buy NFTs. [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis to utilize blockchain with the technique as disclosed by TOGAME to ensure a secure and tamper-proof database as TOGAME suggested [0014].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Lewis" and "TOGAME" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WANG (US 20230136403 A1).
With respect to claim 10:
Lewis in view of TOGAME does not teach a sensor configured to sense a number of users. However,
WANG teaches a sensor configured to sense a number of users. (the number of users around the display device may be determined by a human body sensor 404 [0085])
Lewis in view of TOGAME teaches a system for collecting and trading data. WANG also discloses a system for collecting data using a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Lewis in view of TOGAME to sense the number of users using a sensor with the technique as disclosed by WANG to increase the probabilities and effectiveness of the data being captured the WANG suggests [0046].
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant' s invention and shows the following was known:
US 20230033102 A1: an example of a web page or window display when one or more desired data sets are selected, but the requested one or more data sets are not initially available. For example, as depicted in FIG. 11, a potential acquirer (e.g., purchaser) may search for data sets using search window 210 and find that the data sets that meet the search criteria are not available, or not available in the quantity the purchaser is looking for. Note that the user has the ability to select and add simulated data, including the number of requested simulated data sets via actuation element 183, as part of its search, which will enable the system to create one or more artificial data sets to fulfill any given request. In a refinement, the user will have the ability to select any combination of simulated data and collected user data, if available, for acquisition by a data acquirer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHENG XIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (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.
/Z.X./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights