DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
The examiner notes that there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention. This is because the claims contain very specific steps and procedures in the business idea of gathering and validating user’s experience to issue digital asset for monetization.
More specifically, the system validates presentation based on user’s biometric parameter information and compares user’s information to publicly available information, uses content addressable via cryptographic hash, and mints a digital asset for the encrypted payload package including a smart contract that identifies parameters including ownership, access permissions, licensing parameters, or replay restrictions. To accomplish this, the system incorporates the specific steps – as the claim states:
“present a user interface to an internet enabled device to enable the internet enabled device to collect information about the memory of the experience,
wherein the information may be collected via text, audio or uploading, and wherein the information includes at least some subset of description of the experience; date, location, and environmental factors associated with the experience; images, videos, and audio associated with the experience; and biometric parameters, sensory metadata, and neural data gathered from the user as the information is collected from the user;
utilize an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to gather publicly available information about the experience, consolidate the information collected from the user and the information gathered from the publicly available information, and create an immersive presentation of the memory of the experience;
validate the immersive presentation based on an analysis of some subset of biometric parameters, sensory metadata, and neural data gathered from the user and comparison of the information collected from the user and the information gathered from the publicly available information;
encode the consolidated information that makes up the immersive memory into a unified memory payload package that is time stamped and content addressable via cryptographic hash;
record creation of the unified memory payload package on a tamper-evident registry;
encrypt the unified memory payload package;
store the encrypted unified memory payload package in an external storage platform;
mint a digital asset for the encrypted unified memory payload package including a smart contract that identifies parameters for the unified memory payload package including at least some subset of ownership, access permissions, and licensing parameters, replay restrictions; and
provide a marketplace to list the digital asset for monetization (emphasis examiner’s).”
Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the combination of the elements in the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are directed to a system which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis . Claim 1 recites the limitations of gathering and validating user’s experience to issue digital asset for monetization.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Presenting a user interface to collect experience information; information can be from text, audio OR uploading; information can be about date, location, images, videos, audio, OR sensory metadata; using AI to gather publicly available information; validating presentation based on user’s biometric parameter information and comparing user’s information to publicly available information; encoding the information in a payload package that is timestamped and content addressable via cryptographic hash; recording the payload package on a tamper-evident registry; encrypting the payload package; storing the encrypted payload package in external storage; minting a digital asset for the encrypted payload package including a smart contract that identifies parameters including ownership, access permissions, licensing parameters, OR replay restrictions); and providing a marketplace to list the digital asset for monetization, – specifically, the claim recites:
“gather publicly available information about the experience, consolidate the information collected from the user and the information gathered from the publicly available information, and create an immersive presentation of the memory of the experience; validate the immersive presentation based on an analysis of some subset of biometric parameters, sensory metadata, and neural data gathered from the user and comparison of the information collected from the user and the information gathered from the publicly available information; encode the consolidated information that makes up the immersive memory into a unified memory payload package that is time stamped and content addressable via cryptographic hash; record creation of the unified memory payload package… encrypt the unified memory payload package; store the encrypted unified memory payload package… mint a digital asset for the encrypted unified memory payload package including a smart contract that identifies parameters for the unified memory payload package including at least some subset of ownership, access permissions, and licensing parameters, replay restrictions; and provide a marketplace to list the digital asset for monetization”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a processor”, “a computer readable medium instructions”, “a user interface”, “a smart contract”, “a digital asset”, “an external storage platform”, “a tamper-evident registry”, “a unified memory payload package”, and “an artificial intelligence (AI) engine”, in claim 1; are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system and a processor; a communication device such as a user interface; a storage unit such as a tamper-evident registry and an external storage platform; data and data types such as a unified memory payload package and a digital asset; software module and algorithm such as a computer readable medium instructions, an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, and a smart contract. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in its independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of the tamper-evident registry includes a blockchain or a distributed ledger, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the tamper-evident registry”, “a blockchain”, and “a distributed ledger”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of the tamper-evident registry includes a directed acyclic graph ledger, a quantum-secure distributed system, a federated consensus registry, or a trusted execution environment attestation log, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the tamper-evident registry”, “a quantum-secure distributed system”, “a federated consensus registry”, “a trusted execution environment attestation log”, and “acyclic graph ledge”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the external storage platform includes a decentralized content-addressable file system, a decentralized encrypted cloud storage, or a decentralized secure memory vault, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the external storage platform”, “a decentralized encrypted cloud storage”, “a decentralized secure memory vault”, and “a decentralized content-addressable file system”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the digital asset is a non-fungible token, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the digital asset” and “a non-fungible token”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of the digital assets are designated as single-signature when an individual created or owns the digital asset or multi-signature when a group created or co-owns the digital asset, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the digital assets” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of the marketplace enables users to list their digital assets for purchase, rental, or donation with pricing strategies selected from fixed pricing, auction, or dynamic AI-based adjustment, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “digital assets” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of the marketplace includes a user interface supporting social interaction, curation, and discovery, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the marketplace provides ability to sell, rent, receive bids for, license, finance, collateralize or fractional share the digital asset listed thereon, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of rental options include at least some subset of timed access, view-count-limited access, or partial preview access, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of the smart contracts allow for fractional ownership of the digital assets with automatic on-chain revenue distribution, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the smart contracts” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of smart contracts allow for enforcement rights including access restrictions, expirations, and revocation clauses of the digital assets, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “smart contracts” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of the marketplace includes a voting mechanism wherein users upvote or downvote memories based on relevance, resonance, impact, or accuracy, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of highly upvoted memories receive increased visibility, platform rewards, or algorithmic boosts; and wherein by the very nature of a market those memories are offered at higher prices, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of the marketplace includes a social networking layer allowing users to follow creators, join memory groups, curate playlists, and share memories pseudonymously, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of an AI agent configured to assist with tagging, titling, summarizing, or bundling memories into narrative arcs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “an AI agent” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the AI agent suggests monetization strategies based on emotional tone, engagement data, and memory context, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the AI agent” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of users of the marketplace are assigned trust scores based on behavior, ratings, memory quality, and peer engagement, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of the marketplace incorporates auction dynamics and algorithmic curation to feature rare or highly significant memories, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-19 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Paddock (20240149171) teaches system and method for creating a cryptographically secured digital asset.
Khalfan (20240152909) teaches systems and methods to adjust a unit of experience based on digital assets of users.
Miele (20240177145) teaches computer implemented techniques for facilitating promotional campaigns, market-making, and regulatory compliance activities relating to blockchain-based digital assets.
Yang (20250053623) teaches devices, systems, and methods for efficiently encrypting information into a digital asset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights