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
The reply filed 09/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10, and 30-31 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 11-29, and 34-35 have been canceled. Claims 36-37 are new. Claims 1-2, 5-10, 30-33, and 36-37 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11, 21, and 30-35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11, 21, and 30-35 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-11, 21, and 30-35 set forth in Non-Final Rejection 06/30/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites an improvement to a technical field. Specifically, claim 1 provides an improvement to electronic transaction processing. By minting an NFT, distributing it to multiple user wallets, and using that NFT to facilitate an additional electronic transaction, claim 1 offers an improvement to the security and speed of the additional transaction, as the NFT can be used to confirm the user's identity, the user's trustworthiness, the user's possession of a certain asset, etc. Notably, this improvement is offered via creation and distribution of a previously-non-existent item, the NFT.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, as presently claimed, claim 1 does not provide an improvement to an electronic transaction process because the NFT is not being used to facilitate an additional electronic transaction. Merely granting a second access based on presence of the NFT is not an additional electronic transaction facilitated by the NFT. The NFT is only facilitating a transaction, or one transaction. The plain and ordinary meaning of “access” does not include the transfer or execution of a transaction. While the Examiner recognizes there is a “first access” that is granted, it does not mean there is a first transaction that occurs. Since there is no initial transaction that occurs, the minted and issued NFT is not facilitating an additional electronic transaction, and therefore, the purported improvements cannot be realized. Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks regarding the various improvements an NFT can provide are inherent to NFTs, and not an actual improvement to NFT(s), blockchain technology, or the like.
Examiner recognizes claims 36 and 37 recite an additional transaction, however, it is still not apparent how the NFT facilitates the additional transaction that would amount to a practical application. The NFT can be reasonably interpreted to be merely a type of indicator and the claim(s) do not recite limitations, individually or as a whole, that amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, and/or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 30-33, and 36-37 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-11, 21, and 30-35 set forth in Non-Final Rejection 06/30/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“Claim 1 recites, in-part, "issuing the new NFT to the first digital wallet of the first user and to the second digital wallet of the second user." Applicant respectfully submits that Matheson (which is cited for the claimed "issuing" in the Office Action) does not disclose, teach or suggest the issuance of an NFT to two users' digital wallets based on an interaction between those two users, and later use of that NFT to facilitate a transaction, as claimed. Instead, Matheson teaches issuing an NFT to a customer for that customer's future interactions with a merchant. The reference does not teach (and a person of skill in the art would not find any reason to perform) issuing the NFT to a digital wallet of the merchant or another party based on a user-to-user interaction.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claim 1 does not claim the issuance of an NFT to two users’ digital wallets based on an interaction between those two users. The claim simply recites “issuing the new NFT to the first digital wallet of the first user and to the second digital wallet of the second user.” The claim also does not require that “the new NFT” exist in both of the digital wallets at the same time. Matheson et al. U.S. 2023/0079195 (herein as “Matheson”) discloses in paragraph [0090] -“the merchant may mint a predefined number of NFTs before a given product is publicly available or sold, thereby representing a limited or known amount of inventory for the given product,” “When the customer purchases a particular ticket, the merchant server 304 or platform server 312 may then transfer the NFTs from the merchant’s wallet stored in a storage location…to the customer’s wallet in the same or different storage location.” Thereby, suggesting that each of the merchant’s wallet, i.e. second digital wallet, and the customer’s wallet, i.e. first wallet, at a point in time, is issued the NFT, albeit at different times.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09/30/2025, have warranted a new interpretation of the prior art such that the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) have been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matheson et al. U.S. 2023/0079195.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the second digital wallet of the first user” on pg. 2, lines 21-22 and pg. 3, lines 1-2 should be “the second digital wallet of the second user”
“the first digital wallet of the second user” on pg. 2, lines 22-23 and pg. 3, line 2 should be “the first digital wallet of the first user”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first digital wallet of the second user” in line 2 of the claim should be “the second digital wallet of the second user.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the second digital wallet of the first user” on pg. 6, lines 12-13 and lines 14-15 should be “the second digital wallet of the second user”
“the first digital wallet of the second user” on pg. 6, lines 15 and 17 should be “the first digital wallet of the first user”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the second digital wallet of the first user” on pg. 7, lines 13-14 and lines 15-16 should be “the second digital wallet of the second user”
“the first digital wallet of the second user” on pg. 7, lines 14 and 16 should be “the first digital wallet of the first user”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-10, 30-33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 30-33, and 36-37 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
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 computing system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory comprising instructions; and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
detecting a first request from a first user to access one or more digital assets of a second digital wallet of a second user, wherein the first user is associated with a first digital wallet;
in response to detecting the first request, granting a first access to the one or more digital assets to the first user based on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors includes a location of the first user, a location of the second user, or one or more characteristics of the first user;
minting a new NFT in response to granting the first access to the one or more digital assets to the first user;
issuing the new NFT to the first digital wallet of the first user and to the second digital wallet of the second user; and
detecting a second request, wherein the second request is either:
another request from the first user to access one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user; or
a request from the second user to access one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user;
determining, in response to the second request, that the new NFT is present in the second digital wallet of the first user or the first digital wallet of the second user; and
in response to determining that the new NFT is present in the second digital wallet of the first user or the first digital wallet of the second user, granting a second access to the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user or the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user;
wherein granting the second access comprises:
transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user to the first digital wallet of the first user; or
transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user to the second digital wallet of the second user.
Independent method claims 36 and 37 recite similar distinguishing features as system claim 1, with the addition of “wherein granting the first access comprises transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user to the first digital wallet of the first user.” This limitation is also considered a recitation of a judicial exception. The grouping of this limitation shall be apparent below.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, D-E and H-O recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, D-E and H-M can be grouped as fundamental economic principles or practices, which includes hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk. Granting access to one or more digital assets based on one or more factors is a form of access control, thereby protecting the holder of the digital assets against risk, i.e. mitigating risk. N-O can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions, which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Transferring an asset from one wallet to another is analogous to a sales transaction. Therefore, limitations D-E and H-O recite at least one abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Additional elements A-C are all recited at a high-level of generality (see at least [00103], [00237] for generic descriptions of the computing elements). The abstract idea in limitations D-E and H-O are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea(s). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea(s), claim 1 amounts to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Additional elements F-G are no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
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 considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 2 is related to detecting the first request. This limitation merely elaborates on the abstract idea(s) above without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 32 are related to receiving sensor data. The “one or more sensors” and “receiving sensor data via the one or more sensors” are considered additional elements. The “one or more sensors” have been recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). The “receiving sensor data” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The courts have determined that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function see MPEP 2106.05(d) when claimed in a merely generic manner. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 characterize the asset(s). “Digital assets” is considered an additional element, however, it is merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7-9 are related to the determinants for providing access. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) above without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 10 and 30 are related to granting the first access, they merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) above without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 31 is related to granting the second access. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) above without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 33 characterizes the threshold of activity. The limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) above without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts 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, claims 1-2, 5-10, 30-33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-6, 10, 30-33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheson et al. U.S. 2023/0079195 (herein referred to as “Matheson”).
Re Claim 1, Matheson teaches a computing system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory comprising instructions [0126]; and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising [0126]:
detecting a first request from a first user to access one or more digital assets of a second digital wallet of a second user, wherein the first user is associated with a first digital wallet [0096] – “receive an online merchant access request involving the blockchain wallet,” customer is analogous to a first user, merchant is analogous to a second user;
in response to detecting the first request, granting a first access to the one or more digital assets to the first user based on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors includes a location of the first user, a location of the second user, or one or more characteristics of the first user [0096] – “The merchant server grants access to the controlled content if the platform server indicates that the customer’s blockchain wallet contains one or more access NFTs,” i.e. one or more characteristics of the first user;
minting a new NFT in response to granting access to the one or more digital assets to the first user [0088] – “initiate the minting of the set of NFTs related to the purchase,” “The NFTs may include various aspects of the purchase event…such as the NFTs for…special access privileges,” thereby suggesting the NFT is minted after a user purchases an access privilege, i.e. in response to granting the first access;
issuing the new NFT to the first digital wallet of the first user and to the second digital wallet of the second user;
Paragraph [0060] of the instant specification discloses “NFTs shift the crypto paradigm by making each token unique and irreplaceable, thereby making it impossible for one non-fungible token to be equal to another.” Therefore, in order to appropriately interpret this limitation consistent with the instant specification, the new NFT must comprise of a plurality of different NFTs because two NFTs cannot be equal to another or the new NFT exists in the wallets at different times. In other words, if the new NFT is issued to both the first digital wallet and the second digital wallet, then it must be that “the new NFT” comprises at least two different NFTs and/or that “the new NFT” exists in the wallets at different points in time.
Paragraph [0090] of Matheson discloses “the merchant may mint a predefined number of NFTs before a given product is publicly available or sold, thereby representing a limited or known amount of inventory for the given product,” “When the customer purchases a particular ticket, the merchant server 304 or platform server 312 may then transfer the NFTs from the merchant’s wallet stored in a storage location…to the customer’s wallet in the same or different storage location.” Thereby, suggesting that each of the merchant’s wallet, i.e. second digital wallet, and the customer’s wallet, i.e. first wallet, at a point in time, is issued the NFT, albeit at different times.
detecting a second request, wherein the second request is either [0102] – “merchant server is hosting a flash sale on restricted or limited products. The merchant server may require that the customer have a required access NFT indicating that the customer made a purchase at some prior time,” one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is analogous to a second request since the merchant is checking if the customer has the required access NFT to proceed with accessing the online store:
another request from the first user to access one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user [0102] – “the customer device accesses the restricted content of the merchant’s website associated with the file sale”; or
a request from the second user to access one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user;
determining, in response to the second request, that the new NFT is present in the second digital wallet of the first user or the first digital wallet of the second user [0102] – “The merchant server may require that the customer have a required access NFT indicating that the customer made a purchase at some prior time”; and
in response to determining that the NFT is present in the second digital wallet of the first user or the first digital wallet of the second user, granting a second access to the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the second user or the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the first user [0102] – “The customers with the access NFT may access special features, such as access to limited edition products.”
Re Claim 5, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Matheson further teaches the computing system further comprising one or more sensors, the operations further comprising receiving sensor data via the one or more sensors, and wherein determining information corresponding to the one or more factors is based on the received sensor data [0024] – “a customer may interact through a customer device 150 (e.g., computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device, and the like), a POS device 152 (e.g., a retail device, a kiosk, an automated checkout system, and the like) or any other commerce interface device known in the art. The ecommerce platform 100 may enable merchants to reach customers through the online store 138, through POS devices 152 in physical locations.” The devices are analogous to sensors.
Re Claim 6, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 5, and Matheson further teaches wherein the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the second user includes a pre-existing non-fungible token (NFT) in existence before the detecting the first request [0090] – “merchant may mint a predefined number of NFTs before a given product is publicly available or sold,” thereby the NFTs at the merchant are in existence prior to a customer requesting to purchase.
Re Claim 10, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Matheson further teaches wherein granting the first access comprises charging against the second digital wallet [0054] – “a refund, where the money that was collected from the customer is partially or fully returned,” i.e. charging against the second digital wallet, i.e. merchant’s wallet.
Re Claim 30, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Matheson further teaches wherein granting the first access further comprises:
publishing a digital asset on a marketplace;
allocating, splitting, or dividing a cost or bill across a plurality of assets;
providing access to a discount code [0102] – “flash sale”;
sharing a digital asset between the first user and the second user;
accessing funds across a plurality of digital wallets; or
authorizing a transaction between the first user and second user.
Re Claim 31, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, and Matheson further teaches further comprising determining, in response to detecting the second request, that a threshold of activity has been performed by either of the first and second user [0101] – “determines…that the customer’s transaction history (of purchase events) satisfy the merchant’s rules”; and
wherein the granting the second access is further in response to determining that the threshold of activity has been performed by either of the first and second user [0101] – “determines that the customer’s blockchain wallet contains the required access NFTs and that the customer’s transaction history (of purchase events) satisfy the merchant’s rules…grants the customer device access to the controlled content.”
Re Claim 32, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 31, and Matheson further teaches the computing system further comprising one or more sensors, the operations further comprising receiving sensor data via the one or more sensors, and wherein determining information corresponding to the threshold of activity is based on the received sensor data [0024] – “a customer may interact through a customer device 150 (e.g., computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device, and the like), a POS device 152 (e.g., a retail device, a kiosk, an automated checkout system, and the like) or any other commerce interface device known in the art. The ecommerce platform 100 may enable merchants to reach customers through the online store 138, through POS devices 152 in physical locations.” The devices are analogous to sensors.
Re Claim 33, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 31, and Matheson further teaches wherein the threshold of activity performed by either of the first and second user comprises:
a distance traveled by the first user or the second user;
a completion of a goal or achievement; or
a payment of a bill [0101] – “determines…that the customer’s transaction history (of purchase events) satisfy the merchant’s rules.”
Claim 36 is a computer-implemented method claim that recites similar distinguishing features of system claim 1. Claim 36 includes the addition of “wherein granting the first access comprises transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user to the first digital wallet of the first user.” Matheson teaches in at least [0100] – “the platform server derives certain expected matching values indicating the customer seeking access to the controlled content webpage is likely the customer that previously purchased the requisite access NFT. This type of search may be beneficial as an additional confirmation that the customer’s prior transaction history is relevant to the controlled content for added privacy or security purposes.” Therefore, Matheson teaches granting the first access comprises a customer’s prior transaction history at the merchant, i.e. transferring an asset the one or more digital assets of the second digital wallet of the second user to the first digital wallet of the first user. As such, claim 36 is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 37 is substantively identical to new claim 36, with the exception of “wherein granting the second access comprises transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user to the second digital wallet of the second user.” Matheson teaches in [0102] – “When the customer attempts to execute the purchase transaction for the particular product…,” whereby the customer accessing the online merchant store for the flash sale is analogous to a second request as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a purchase transaction is an exchange of assets. Therefore, a customer purchasing a product from the merchant would include the customer paying the merchant, i.e. transferring an asset of the one or more digital assets of the first digital wallet of the first user to the second digital wallet of the second user, for the product(s)/good(s). As such, claim 37 is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheson et al. U.S. 2023/0079195 (herein referred to as “Matheson”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng U.S. 2023/0162180.
Re Claim 2, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, however, Matheson does not explicitly teach wherein the detecting the first request from the first user is based on detecting a first device of the first user within a threshold distance of a second device that contains the second digital wallet, wherein the second device contains the second digital wallet.
Deng discloses techniques for transactions associated with NFTs. Specifically, Deng discloses in [0105] the instructions 108 may utilize artificial intelligence (AI), neural networking (NN) and/or machine learning (ML) techniques to calculate a “distance” between various attributes (i.e., attribute vectors) to determine a likelihood that a user or group of users may be interested in a transaction. Furthermore, in some examples, the instructions 108 may determine one or more transaction assets and/or associated non-fungible tokens (NFT) that may be most likely to be of interest to a user or group of users. Also, in some examples, the instructions 108 may further determine one or more similar transaction asset to a given transaction asset (e.g., to display in association with the given transaction asset) as well. [0141] - As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that an object is visible only to second users within a threshold distance from the first user. If the first user subsequently changes location, the original second users with access to the object may lose access, while a new group of second users may gain access as they come within the threshold distance of the first user.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matheson’s access privileges using NFTs with the teachings of detecting a threshold distance between devices in Deng. One would be motivated to make this combination because it allows the user to have more control over their privacy by allowing them to update their privacy settings to specify one or more geographic locations from which objects can be accessed Deng, [0141].
Re Claim 8, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, however, Matheson does not explicitly teach wherein the minting of the new NFT is based on determining that a first device having the first digital wallet of the first user is within a threshold distance of a second device having the second digital wallet of the second user.
Deng discloses techniques for transactions associated with NFTs. Specifically, Deng discloses in [0105] the instructions 108 may utilize artificial intelligence (AI), neural networking (NN) and/or machine learning (ML) techniques to calculate a “distance” between various attributes (i.e., attribute vectors) to determine a likelihood that a user or group of users may be interested in a transaction. Furthermore, in some examples, the instructions 108 may determine one or more transaction assets and/or associated non-fungible tokens (NFT) that may be most likely to be of interest to a user or group of users. Also, in some examples, the instructions 108 may further determine one or more similar transaction asset to a given transaction asset (e.g., to display in association with the given transaction asset) as well. [0141] - As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that an object is visible only to second users within a threshold distance from the first user. If the first user subsequently changes location, the original second users with access to the object may lose access, while a new group of second users may gain access as they come within the threshold distance of the first user. Furthermore, Deng discloses in [0073] – generation of the NFT may be after generation of the transaction asset. Therefore, Deng discloses creating, or generating, the NFT based on a threshold distance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matheson’s access privileges using NFTs with the teachings of detecting a threshold distance between devices in Deng. One would be motivated to make this combination because it allows the user to have more control over their privacy by allowing them to update their privacy settings to specify one or more geographic locations from which objects can be accessed Deng, [0141].
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheson et al. U.S. 2023/0079195 (herein referred to as “Matheson”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott et al. U.S. 2017/0017958 (herein referred to as “Scott”).
Re Claim 7, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, however, Matheson do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more characteristics of the first user comprises a characteristic of the first digital wallet of the first user, wherein the minting of the new NFT is in response to the determining that the characteristic of the first digital wallet of the first user corresponds to a characteristic of the second digital wallet of the second user.
Scott discloses secure processing of electronic payments. Specifically, Scott discloses
wherein the one or more characteristics of the first user comprises a characteristic of the first digital wallet of the first user [0037] – “a purchaser’s or other user’s mobile or desktop computer (i.e. first user), and/or one or more applications installed thereon, including for example one or more virtual wallet and/or merchant applications, may be registered with a trusted authentication platform (i.e. registering is a characteristic),” [0038] – “Such a trusted device may then be used, for example, by a consumer or other user to pay for goods or services…As a further example, such a trusted device may be used to communicate locally with a merchant system, such as a mobile point of sale or transaction processor (“mPOS”) bound to a merchant (i.e. second user), which itself may be registered as a trusted device with the server,”
wherein the minting of the new NFT is in response to the determining that the characteristic of the first digital wallet of the first user corresponds to a characteristic of the second digital wallet of the second user [0037] – “Upon completion of registration, or at any time(s) thereafter, such device(s) and/or application(s) may be provided with one or more secure electronic tokens useable by the trusted platform and other devices…to verify or otherwise identify the request communication device as, e.g. a ‘trusted device’.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matheson’s access privileges using NFTs with the teachings of determining that the characteristic of the first digital wallet corresponds to a characteristic of the second digital wallet, such characteristic being identified as trusted devices, in Scott. One would be motivated to make this combination because it can eliminate the need for exchanging sensitive data, reduce cost in terms of time and processing resources, and decrease electronic transaction risk(s) Scott, [0038].
Re Claim 9, Matheson teaches the computing system of claim 1, however, Matheson does not explicitly teach wherein the minting of the new NFT is based on determining that a social media profile of the first user corresponds to a social media profile of the second user.
Scott discloses secure processing of electronic payments. Specifically, Scott discloses
wherein the minting of the new NFT is based on determining that a social media profile of the first user corresponds to a social media profile of the second user [0042] – “Each individual purchaser or other transaction initiator…may have or be associated with multiple identifies…for different social media platforms…Such verification can be implemented and employed through provision of a token.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matheson’s access privileges using NFTs with the teachings of determining that a social media profile of the first user corresponds to a social media profile of the second user by way of provisioning a token in Scott. One would be motivated to make this combination because it enables completion of a transaction by verifying the identity is trusted to pay Scott, [0042], [0077].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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 at (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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698