Patent Application 16436869 - Attention Token Digital Asset Rewards

Title: Attention Token Digital Asset Rewards

Application Information

Invention Title: Attention Token Digital Asset Rewards
Application Number: 16436869
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2019-06-10T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2019-06-10T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 014170
Examiner Employee Number: 90661
Art Unit: 3685
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/30/2025. Claim 1 has been amended, claim 22 is canceled, new claim 23 has been added, and claims 5-8 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 21 and 23 are currently pending.
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.

Claims 1-4, 9-10, 21 and 23 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation” is indefinite. The manner in which the limitation is written renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to read “…wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad ”, “wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates ”, or if the excerpt “a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad” is missing language (i.e., what is being indicated about the indicia of the user attention?).
The term “calculated correctly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “calculated correctly” 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 “willingness to accept attention tokens” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “willingness to accept attention tokens” 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 “selects recipient content creators unpredictably while maintaining overall proportionality based on user attention metrics” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “selects recipient content creators unpredictably while maintaining overall proportionality based on user attention metrics” 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.
Dependent claims are rejected as well because they inherit the limitations of the independent claim 1.
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, 9, 10, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A method of attention token rewards, the method comprising:
receiving,
displaying,
automatically collecting,
comparing, based at least in part on collecting the indicia of user attention to the media content, the third-party content-producing account to a list of content creators that are verified to accept digital asset rewards via the attention application;
automatically signing,
broadcasting the automatically signed message
transmitting [sending], to an attention consumer associated with the at least one privacy preserving ad, a second message comprising the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation; and
receiving,
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a marketing/sales activity. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by an “attention application” including a “digital asset wallet”, and a “user device” including “sensors”, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being described as a marketing/sales activity. For example, but for the “attention application” ,“digital asset wallet”, “user device” and “sensors” language, the steps describe paying a publisher for presented content that has received attention, and paying a user for viewing presented ads, which are marketing/sales activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of an advertising activity, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of an “attention application” and “user device” with “sensors” to perform the steps. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras [0002], [0021]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Further, the inclusion of a “digital asset wallet”, and a “digital” asset reward merely serves to link the judicial exception (i.e., payment to a publisher and user) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer environment). The claims also recite “automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet…” and “broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account”. However, these limitations merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception (i.e., payment to a publisher) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., payment through blockchain). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 elements of using an “attention application” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, while the elements of a “digital asset wallet” and “digital” asset reward, and the limitations of “automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet…” and “broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account” merely link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, or general linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 9-10, 21 and 23 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-4 and 9-10 merely further narrow the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-4 merely describe attributes of the payment to the publisher, claim 5 merely describes the publisher, and claim 9 merely describes parameters of the digital asset reward. Claim 10 indicates that the media content is a “toast notification”, however this merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 21 discloses “authenticated hardware”, but this computing element merely serves to place the abstract idea of “authenticating data” in a computer environment. Claim 23 features the display of the portion of attention tokens designated for non-onboarded content creators. However, the display of data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. The dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.

Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka (US 2020/0322685) in view of Allen (US 2015/0220928), “basic attention token – Introducing Blockchain-Based Digital Advertising” available on May 16, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT1, “Announcing a new Blockchain-Based Digital Advertising Platform” by Basic Attention Token available on March 23, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT22, and “Reducing Digital Ad Fraud: A New Deal with BAT” available on April 7, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT33 (alternatively Mallinson (US 2008/0169930)).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyooka discloses a method of attention token rewards, the method comprising:
receiving, at an attention application on a user device, media content originating from a third-party content-producing account on a centralized media platform, the attention application including a digital asset wallet of attention tokens, wherein the attention application is anonymously associated with a user such that the attention application is not configured with personally identifiable information;
displaying, by the attention application, the media content received from the centralized media platform to a user of the attention application;
Kiyooka discloses a user viewing videos that have been uploaded by a content creator via a browser, wherein the content includes a tip button, wherein the user has an associated wallet, and wherein user-privacy infringing targeted ads are excluded (Paras. [0097], [0108], Fig. 4, and Fig. 6) Alternatively, BAT teaches a user’s private data never leaving their device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT since it would allow for the preservation of user privacy.
Kiyooka also discloses automatically collecting, by one or more sensors of the user device, indicia of user attention to the media content during an attention session. Kiyooka discloses a user operating a displayed tipping button (i.e., indicia of user attention) that is displayed during video playback, and processing a tip to the content creator of the displayed video (Paras. [0025]-[0026]). This may be considered as collecting indicia of user attention since the tipping button is displayed during video feedback. Further, Kiyooka discloses user devices comprised of at least smartphones and tablets. Therefore, Kiyooka discloses the operations of the displayed tip-button via sensors (i.e., touchscreen sensors).
Kiyooka does not disclose comparing, based at least in part on collecting the indicia of user attention to the media content, the third-party content-producing account to a list of content creators that are verified to accept digital asset rewards via the attention application. BAT2 teaches verifying publishers that are to receive a basic attention token (i.e., digital asset reward). See “In early stages, the BAT will be specifically tied to Brave browsers and Brave servers, along with verified publishers.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT2 since it would ensure that participating publishers receive basic attention tokens.
Kiyooka does not fully disclose automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet and based at least in part on the indicia of user attention during the attention session and the comparing, a message to execute a transfer of a first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account and not to the centralized media platform, the transfer executed such that the user is anonymous to the third-party content-producing account. While Kiyooka discloses transferring tips (i.e., digital asset rewards) to content creators, Kiyooka does not explicitly disclose the use of a private key associated with the digital asset wallet to execute the transfer, or transferring the digital asset reward to the third-party content producing account instead of to the centralized media platform. BAT2 teaches the utilization of Ethereum for the transfer and verification process of basic attention tokens. See “Beyond 1.0 BAT: Make the transfer and verification process entirely distributed on Ethereum using a state channel scheme with zero knowledge proof protocol for ensuring user privacy.” While not explicitly stating the use of a private key to execute a transaction, the Johnson reference notes that valid Ethereum transactions require the transaction to be signed using a private key. See “Everyone knows that to create a valid Ethereum transaction, you first have to sign it using your private key, and that only signed transactions are valid.” Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the blockchain payment process of the secondary reference(s) for the payment means of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Kiyooka also does not disclose broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account. Kiyooka discloses payments, however, Kiyooka does not disclose payment in the manner disclosed in the claim (i.e., cryptocurrency). Allen teaches that the transferring of cryptocurrency involves at least a user broadcasting a digitally signed message, updating a block chain (i.e., shared ledger), and transferring an amount to a recipient’s wallet (see at least Paras. [0004]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of Allen since it would provide another avenue for payment in the system of Kiyooka.
Kiyooka also does not disclose transmitting, to an attention consumer associated with the at least one privacy preserving ad, a second message comprising the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation. BAT3 teaches the measuring of a user’s direct attention and engagement, as well as the reporting of ads viewed (i.e., indicia of user attention) wherein ad impressions are verifiable using Zero-Knowledge Proof Protocols. The Examiner notes that the language “wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation” is simply a label for the message and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular data in the message) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., the transmission of the message) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the reporting of ads viewed be comprised of a zero-knowledge proof because the manner in which the predefined action is determined does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the message differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT3 since it would preserve the privacy of users from advertisers.
Alternatively, Mallison teaches the limitation. BAT teaches measuring user attention to content, and being rewarded for their attention by advertisers. Further, BAT2 teaches the use of a Zero Knowledge Proof ledger system to protect individual user anonymity from advertisers, publishers, and third parties (i.e., attention consumers). However, they fail to outright disclose the particular features of the claim (i.e., the actual providing of the indicia of user attention to the attention consumer). Mallinson discloses providing information to determine a user’s level of attention (see at least Paras. [0040]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 to utilize the teachings of Mallinson since it would outright indicate that user attention information is provided to attention consumers, as implied by BAT and BAT2.
Kiyooka also does not disclose:
…wherein the media content includes at least one privacy preserving ad;
Collecting…indicia of user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad
Receiving, at the digital asset wallet, in accordance with a second update to the shared ledger of the blockchain network and in response to transmitting the second message comprising the indicia of the user attention, a transfer of a second digital asset reward based at least in part on the indicia of user attention
BAT teaches a system that measures attention paid to content and ads in a browser tab, and rewards users viewing ads with “basic attention tokens”. BAT also teaches that the ads are anonymously matched with customers (i.e., privacy preserving). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination Kiyooka (i.e., display of content and indications of user attention) to utilize the teachings of BAT since it would provide users with an incentive to view ads. In regards to the “in accordance with a second update to the shared ledger of the blockchain network”, the Examiner notes that this merely describes the process taught by Allen, but with a second transaction.
Regarding claim 2, Kiyooka discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward includes a set of payments to third-party content producing accounts on centralized media platforms, an amount of each payment in the set of payments being based on a fraction of attention of a user of the attention application paid to each third-party content producing account. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator (i.e., 100% of payment based on attention) (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyooka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet includes a one-time tip payment to the third-party content producing accounts. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Kiyooka discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet is a recurring tip to the third-party content producing accounts. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator multiple times (Paras. [0026], [0134]).

Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) and in further view of Redlich (US 2015/0120466)
Regarding claim 9, Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first digital asset reward depends at least in part on a dwell time on the media content. Redlich teaches a system wherein time spent on specific uploaded content is considered in determining a payment score for a content provider (Para. [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) to consider time spent viewing content as taught by Redlich since longer viewer spend on content is an indication of higher quality content which would be reflected in higher payment (Para. [0287]).

Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson), and in further view of Lo (US 2019/0238937)
Regarding claim 10, Kiyooka, does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the media content includes a toast notification with a hyperlink. Lo teaches a system wherein the number of click-throughs on interactive content is tracked and wherein the interactive content incudes pop-up links (i.e., toast notifications) (Paras. [0033]-[0036]; Para. [0019] of associated provisional). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) to track click-throughs of pop-up links as taught by Lo since it would allow providers with knowledge about user behaviors and interests (Para. [0017]).

Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson), and in further view of Le Chevalier (US 2014/0068408)
Regarding claim 21, Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the user device includes authenticated hardware that executes the attention application that authenticates the indicia of user attention. Le Chevalier teaches a system wherein authenticated devices report activities facilitated by a browser application to a centralized location (Para. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, and BAT2 to utilize the teachings of Le Chevalier since it would allow for the providing of activities for a particular user account across different devices (Paras. [0036]-[0037]).
Examiner Notes
In light of the 112 issues, no prior art was found for claim 23 at this time. Examiner reserves the right to apply prior art upon resolving the issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the use of an “attention application” that is “anonymously associated with a user such that the attention application is not configured with personally identifiable information” represents a technical improvement over conventional content monetization systems that rely on tracking users’ personal information. This is merely a conclusory statement with no indication as to how the attention application provides an improvement.
Applicant argues that the claimed system solves the technical problem where “trackers and ad-tech entities” divert “the majority of the revenue in the system” away from “content publishers and users”. This is not persuasive. The enablement of direct rewards to third-party content creators rather than centralized platforms is not a technical solution to a technical problem. If anything, the claims introduce an improvement to a business method (i.e., payment to publishers and users)
Applicant argues that the implementation of “secure blockchain technology” provides technical improvements in security and decentralized reward distribution. The implementation of blockchain technology does not provide a technical improvement. The claims have not introduced the concept of (i.e., invented) blockchain technology nor do they introduce any improvement to blockchain technology or to any other technology. If anything, the claims merely implement the judicial exception of payment via the blockchain technology (i.e., apply it).
Applicant argues that the limitation “transmitting, to an attention consumer associated with the at least one privacy preserving ad, a second message comprising the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation” represents a technical improvement that enhances privacy while maintaining verifiability. This is not persuasive. As explained in the body of the 103 rejection above, the language indicating that the message is comprised of the zero-knowledge proof is merely a label for the message. Further, even if taking in consideration the message comprising a zero-knowledge proof, the mere transmission of a zero-knowledge proof does not automatically equate to enhancing privacy while maintaining verifiability. It is merely the transmission of particular information.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility by providing a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” that provides a technical improvement. This is not persuasive. As stated above, the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement, unlike BASCOM.
Applicant argues that the use of zero-knowledge proofs for attention verification and the automatic directing of rewards to third-party content creators instead of centralized platforms is not conventional. This is not persuasive. The actual use of zero-knowledge proofs is not featured in the claim language. The claims merely feature the transmission of a message comprising a zero-knowledge proof. Further, even if properly claimed, the use of zero-knowledge proofs for attention verification and the automatic directing of rewards to third-party content creators instead of centralized platforms is abstract in itself (i.e., verification of data and direct payment).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Finjan are not persuasive. Unlike Finjan, which was found to provide an improvement to computer functionality, the instant claims do not. The actual functioning (e.g. processing capabilities) of the involved devices are unchanged. Any alleged improvement is merely a result of the application of conventional computer technology to implement the abstract idea, and is not analogous to the technological improvements identified by the courts to be significantly more.
With regards to Applicant's arguments with regards to the Core Wireless decision, the Examiner notes that the while the Core Wireless decision has provided an exemplary concept deemed as patent eligible, the analysis and subsequent decision is specific to only that case, and the two-part Mayo analysis the Examiners have been required to use has not been changed or altered, and "the Examiners are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e. sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously found abstract by the courts." (see May 2016 Update Memorandum). The Examiner contends the claimed concept in Core Wireless is not at all relevant, related or similar to the instant subject matter, and thus any arguments on the basis of Core Wireless are simply not persuasive. This is particularly the case, as the subject matter in Core Wireless deemed eligible was directed to an improved user interface for computing devices.
“The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal.3 Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ' 476 patent requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state.”
The decision in Core Wireless continues by stating that the claims focused on a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user “to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality.”
Examiner concludes that the above decision is clearly different than what the instant application is claiming. In Core Wireless the speed of a user's navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” The instant application provides no improvement to a user interface, it merely provides payments to publishers and users based on an attention metric.
Based on at least the above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that Mallinson does not use a zero-knowledge proof. The Examiner agrees, but notes that the purpose of the inclusion of Mallinson was to explicitly disclose the providing of measured user attention to content to advertisers. The use of the zero-knowledge proof was found to be disclosed by BAT2. The combination of BAT, BAT2 and Mallinson was what was found to disclose the limitation. Based on this, the 103 rejection is maintained.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Franham (US 2018/0357729) discloses users compensating content creators (Paras. [0013], [0109]).
“Soon, you’ll get paid in cryptocurrency to watch ads on your phone” by Permission.io, available on February 27, 2018 discusses providing compensation in crypto to users based on ad consumption
“Vimeo ‘Tip Jar’ Lets Users Pay Creators for Content” teaches paid Vimeo accounts being able to activate a button to allow users to donate by credit card or PayPal
“How to send Ether to 11,440 people” by Nick Johnson, available August 5, 2016 teaches that in order to create an Ethereum transaction, you first have to sign it using a private key.
“Interview with Brendan Eich, CEO of Brave” by Elio Qoshi, available May 2, 2016 teaches the use of zero-knowledge-based impression and click confirmation.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685

1 Found at https://web.archive.org/web/20170516193711/https://basicattentiontoken.org/
2 Found at https://basicattentiontoken.org/announcing-a-new-blockchain-based-digital-advertising-platform/
3 Found at https://basicattentiontoken.org/reducing-digital-ad-fraud/