DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/248,284, filed 24 June 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the tokens is” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner believes “where the token is” was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. Each claim includes “minting [a] token to a blockchain ledger to ensure verifiability and uniqueness”.
It is inherent that blockchain storage ensures verifiability. However, it is not inherent in blockchain storage that uniqueness is ensured; the same data can be stored in multiple locations. The originally filed application gives no means, e.g. steps or algorithm, by which uniqueness is ensured.
See MPEP § 2161.01(I): “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” [Emphasis in the original]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or system or data platform (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) two data gathering steps (receiving information that an event is considered important and then retrieving information about the event), generating a token in no particular manner, storing it, and tracking its use in no particular manner and as a result of which someone is compensated somehow.
First, compensating someone for participation in an event is a commercial interaction and a fundamental business process. Just for one example, it is quite routine to compensate speakers who present at conferences. Second, these are mental steps which, in the absence of computers, can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. A conference organizer can be told verbally that a conference is important, can gather data about it by consulting paper records (or, conversely, can create them), can give a written coupon to a speaker offering compensation, make sure the speaker actually performs his or her duties, and can then compensate the person, e.g. by handing over currency. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers with blockchain capability. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate information about events, tokens, compensation and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 17, which has the most, includes a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Blockchain storage was well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the present invention. For example, Gadwa (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0310476) could write at that early date that a “blockchain” was by then “well known in the art”. [0084]
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a sequence of abstract steps while using well-understood, routine and conventional data storage technology – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-6, 8 and 13-15 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 7, 9, 16 and 20 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data; claim 10 simply requires transmitting data, and claims 11 and 19 simply recite providing output.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0082291) in view of Darnell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0342171).
In-line citations are to Allen.
With regard to Claim 1:
Allen teaches: A computer-implemented method for tokenizing an event using a data platform, [0090; computers are used which connect to networks] the method comprising:
receiving, via a data application executed on a user device, a signal marking an event as important; [0027; the “time and date” of a “meeting” which includes “important notes” are received and used in a determination; that a meeting has important notes reads on it being important]
retrieving event metadata from one or more data sources associated with the event, the event metadata including at least temporal data, [0005; a “transaction timeframe” reads on temporal data] spatial data… [0016; “location-based data for the parties”]
generating a token representing the event, the token comprising a unique identifier… [abstract; an “electronic ownership token” is generated for a digital certificate and is stored on a blockchain; 0043; a “certificate identifier [] uniquely identifies the digital certificate”]
minting the token to a blockchain ledger to ensure verifiability and uniqueness; [abstract, as cited above; storing the token reads on this use of “minting”] and
tracking usage of the token across one or more digital or physical transactions, [0005; transaction data are tracked during a transaction timeframe] wherein compensation is automatically allocated to the user based on predefined token utilization rules. [0052; compensation is provided based on various rules]
Allen does not explicitly teach using user preference data, that a certificate or token includes event metadata, but it is known in the art. Darnell teaches a system for managing learning events on a blockchain. [title] It detects an “event related to a learner” and measures the “value or importance of the event”, and uses “metadata” associated with the event. [abstract] User participation is tracked including a “timestamp”. [0023] The user profile includes a “user preference”, [0032] and the system provides a “validation token”. [0015] It captures user interactions during playback of an audio or video. [0051] Users may provide feedback. [0020] Darnell and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain and tokens to monitor user interactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the present invention to combine the teaching of Darnell with that of Allen in order to provide sufficient data to support a personalized user experience, as taught by Darnell; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Darnell’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that data are stored “to ensure verifiability and uniqueness” consists entirely of manner-of-use language which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event metadata further comprises one or more media files captured during the event, [Darnell, 0051 as cited above in regard to claim 1] and a timestamped interaction history of attendees or users associated with the event. [Darnell, 0023 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the token is assigned a level based on user engagement metrics, the level determines a monetization value within a token marketplace. [0038; the token is assigned a “value associated with” a transaction]
That a number “determines a monetization value within a token marketplace” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: verifying the authenticity of the token utilizing the unique identifier associated with the token. [0020; the token’s digital certificate is used for this purpose]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the token to one or more users, devices, or platforms. [0082; the token is transmitted to a “first party”]
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: automatically providing feedback regarding the event. [Darnell, 0020 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 12:
Allen teaches: A system for tokenizing an event, comprising:
one or more electronic devices configured to execute a data application, [0004; computers are used] the data application is configured to determine information associated with the event; [0027; it manages information about meetings]
a data platform in communication with the one or more electronic devices through one or more networks, [0094; computers may be connected to the Internet] the data platform including a processor for executing instructions, and a memory storing the instructions, wherein the instructions are executed [0091; one or more processors and memory storing, 0092, instructions] to receive, via a data application executed on a user device, a signal marking an event as important, [0027; the “time and date” of a “meeting” which includes “important notes” are received and used in a determination; that a meeting has important notes reads on it being important] retrieve event metadata from one or more data sources associated with the event, the event metadata including at least temporal data, [0005; a “transaction timeframe” reads on temporal data] spatial data… [0016; “location-based data for the parties”] generate a token representing the event, the token comprising a unique identifier… [abstract; an “electronic ownership token” is generated for a digital certificate and is stored on a blockchain; 0043; a “certificate identifier [] uniquely identifies the digital certificate”] mint the token to a blockchain ledger to ensure verifiability and uniqueness, [abstract, as cited above; storing the token reads on this use of “minting”] and track usage of the token across one or more digital or physical transactions, [0005; transaction data are tracked during a transaction timeframe] wherein compensation is automatically allocated to the user based on predefined token utilization rules. [0052; compensation is provided based on various rules]
Allen does not explicitly teach using user preference data, that a certificate or token includes event metadata, but it is known in the art. Darnell teaches a system for managing learning events on a blockchain. [title] It detects an “event related to a learner” and measures the “value or importance of the event”, and uses “metadata” associated with the event. [abstract] User participation is tracked including a “timestamp”. [0023] The user profile includes a “user preference”, [0032] and the system provides a “validation token”. [0015] It captures user interactions during playback of an audio or video. [0051] Users may provide feedback. [0020] Darnell and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain and tokens to monitor user interactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the present invention to combine the teaching of Darnell with that of Allen in order to provide sufficient data to support a personalized user experience, as taught by Darnell; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Darnell’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 12, wherein the event metadata further comprises one or more media files captured during the event, [Darnell, 0051 as cited above in regard to claim 12] and a timestamped interaction history of attendees or users associated with the event. [Darnell, 0023 as cited above in regard to claim 12]
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of claim 12, wherein the token is assigned a level based on user engagement metrics, the level determines a monetization value within a token marketplace. [0038; the token is assigned a “value associated with” a transaction]
That a number “determines a monetization value within a token marketplace” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 17:
Allen teaches: A data platform, comprising:
a processor for executing a set of instructions;
a memory for storing the set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions are executed [0091; one or more processors and memory storing, 0092, instructions] to:
receive, via a data application executed on a user device, a signal marking an event as important; [0027; the “time and date” of a “meeting” which includes “important notes” are received and used in a determination; that a meeting has important notes reads on it being important]
retrieve event metadata from one or more data sources associated with the event, the event metadata including at least temporal data, [0005; a “transaction timeframe” reads on temporal data] spatial data… [0016; “location-based data for the parties”]
generate a token representing the event, the token comprising a unique identifier… [abstract; an “electronic ownership token” is generated for a digital certificate and is stored on a blockchain; 0043; a “certificate identifier [] uniquely identifies the digital certificate”]
mint the token to a blockchain ledger to ensure verifiability and uniqueness; [abstract, as cited above; storing the token reads on this use of “minting”] and
track usage of the token across one or more digital or physical transactions, [0005; transaction data are tracked during a transaction timeframe] wherein compensation is automatically allocated to the user based on predefined token utilization rules. [0052; compensation is provided based on various rules]
Allen does not explicitly teach using user preference data, that a certificate or token includes event metadata, but it is known in the art. Darnell teaches a system for managing learning events on a blockchain. [title] It detects an “event related to a learner” and measures the “value or importance of the event”, and uses “metadata” associated with the event. [abstract] User participation is tracked including a “timestamp”. [0023] The user profile includes a “user preference”, [0032] and the system provides a “validation token”. [0015] It captures user interactions during playback of an audio or video. [0051] Users may provide feedback. [0020] Darnell and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain and tokens to monitor user interactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the present invention to combine the teaching of Darnell with that of Allen in order to provide sufficient data to support a personalized user experience, as taught by Darnell; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Darnell’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 18:
The data platform of claim 17, wherein the event metadata further comprises one or more media files captured during the event, [Darnell, 0051 as cited above in regard to claim 17] and a timestamped interaction history of attendees or users associated with the event. [Darnell, 0023 as cited above in regard to claim 17]
With regard to Claim 19:
The data platform of claim 18, wherein the set of instructions are further executed to:
automatically provide feedback regarding the event. [Darnell, 0020 as cited above in regard to claim 17]
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. in view of Darnell et al. further in view of Simons et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0035209).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the tokens is a nonfungible blockchain token utilized to tokenize the event and the event metadata associated with the event.
With regard to Claim 15:
The system of claim 12, wherein the tokens is a nonfungible blockchain token utilized to tokenize the event and the event metadata associated with the event.
Allen and Darnell teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 12, including managing event metadata and using blockchain for storage, but do not explicitly teach the use of an NFT, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Simons teaches a network gaming application [title] that makes use of “blockchain” [0038] and may store “non-fungible tokens”. [0052] The use of the tokens may be related to an “event”. [0041] Simons and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain to store token information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Simons with that of Allen and Darnell in order to track data immutably, as taught by Simons; [0014] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Simons’ data in place of, or in addition to, that of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. in view of Darnell et al. further in view of Domokos et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0228461, filed 25 January 2018).
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the token is encoded with a smart contract specifying conditions for resale, redistribution, or access to the event metadata.
Allen and Darnell teach the method of claim 1 including the use of tokens to regulate access, [0005] but do not explicitly teach the use of a smart contract, but it is known in the art. Domokos teaches a mobile shopping system [title] that may use “cryptographic tokens” and “blockchain functionality”. [0004] It includes using “payment processors” to make a payment which may be related to a “reservation”. [0047] It uses “smart contracts” to facilitate the transactions. [0068] Payments may be made in “cryptocurrency” or “cash”. [0092] Domokos and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain to store token information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Domokos with that of Allen and Darnell in order to provide innovative blockchain functionality, as taught by Domokos; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing code in a blockchain (which is all a smart contract is) as in Domokos rather than the storage media of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
compensating the user for event reservations to the event utilizing the token, wherein the user is compensated in cryptocurrency or cash. [Domokos, 0092 as cited above in regard to claim 5]
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. in view of Darnell et al. further in view of Jessamine (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0066063).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein the unique identifier is an inaudible tone.
With regard to Claim 16:
The system of claim 12, further comprising:
verifying the authenticity of the token utilizing the unique identifier associated with the token, [0020; the token’s digital certificate is used for this purpose] wherein the unique identifier is an inaudible tone.
With regard to Claim 20:
The data platform of claim 17, wherein the set of instructions are further executed to:
verify the authenticity of the token utilizing a unique identifier associated with the token, [0020; the token’s digital certificate is used for this purpose] wherein the unique identifier is an inaudible tone.
Allen and Darnell teach the method of claim 1, method of claim 12, and data platform of claim 17, including the use of a token identifier as cited above, but do not explicitly teach using an inaudible tone, but it is known in the art. Jessamine teaches a mobile payment system [title] that uses “virtual currency tokens”, [0052] and uses “blockchain technology”. [0126] Information may be transmitted using an “inaudible sound or frequency”. [0087] Data transmitted may explicitly be “identification”., [0003] and this may consist of a ”unique identifier” for credentials related to a “timestamp”. [0036] Jessamine and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain to store token information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jessamine with that of Allen and Darnell in order to improve security, as taught by Jessamine; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another, simply storing information by the means of Jessamine rather than, or in addition to, that of Allen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. in view of Darnell et al. further in view of O’Brien et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0219830).
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the token comprises:
embedding a reference to the token within a social media post; and
enabling interaction tracking for the token through embedded analytics tags.
Allen and Darnell teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this use of social media, but it is known in the art. O’Brien teaches an electronic messaging system [title] that embeds tokens into electronic message including “embedded tags” so as to be able to “monitor a result of the delivery of said messages”. [0079] The system may use social media sites such as “linkedin” for messages. [0155] O’Brien and Allen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using tokens to manage data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of O’Brien with that of Allen and Darnell in order to manage messaging challenges, as taught by O’Brien; [0003] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing O’Brien’s steps after those of Allen; each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights