DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed March 11, 2026, the applicant has provided updated drawing, FIG. 1, however per the applicant’s specification as filed, element 118, is not in the applicant’s specification and therefore is considered new matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that [0002 and 0016] discloses a blockchain based digital ledger entry to authenticate provenance of the NFT. Thus, the drawing objection is maintained. The Examiner has also maintained and updated and 35 USC § 101, 112, and 103 rejections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the blockchain digital ledger must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, drawing submitted March 11, 2026, the applicant’s specification does not disclose a “blockchain based digital ledger” as part of the applicant’s invention. The applicant’s specification merely discloses said term in the background section of the specification. The background section merely describes the general area of technology and is not part of the claimed invention. As stated previously, in regards to claim 21 the examiner was unable to find support for the limitation that states, “to record the assessed value and a creator-specific identifier in association with a blockchain-based digital ledger entry to authenticate provenance of the NFT.” The only place the specification discloses a blockchain/ledge is [0002]. [0002] states, “A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a blockchain (a form of digital ledger), which can be sold or traded on digital markets. NFTs can be associated with reproducible digital files such as artwork, photographs, videos, audio clips, music, games, and documents, and a license to use these assets for a specified purpose. NFTs use a digital ledger to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership, but do not rest1ict the sharing or copying of the underlying digital files. The lack of interchangeability (fungibility) distinguishes NFTs from blockchain cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin.” Also, paragraph [0016] does not disclose support for the limitation stated above of “ record the assessed value and a creator-specific identifier in association with a blockchain-based digital ledger entry to authenticate provenance of the NFT”, The applicant’s specification is completely silent that a blockchain based digital ledger entry is used to authenticate provenance of the NFT. The aforementioned citations are not equivalent to the applicant’s limitation.
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 21-40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claim 21
accumulate digital content of a creator through a data acquisition interface that retrieves by retrieving digital media files and metadata from a plurality of sources;
in communication, in which the digital content is stored in association with information relating to the creator;
configured to filter and select at least some of the digital content, and further configured to convert the at least some of the digital content into a digital collectible by executing machine-implemented rules that analyze the digital content of the creator to identify at least one of a clout value, a popularity value, or an exclusivity value associated with the creator;
configured to analyze information from the digital collectible selector related to the digital collectible and assess its value, to determine an assessed value based at least in part on the at least one of the clout value, the popularity value, or the exclusivity value for the creator using scoring weights stored in the memory;
receive the digital collectible and the assessed value and to produce the NFT using the digital collectible and the assessed value, and to record the assessed value and a creator-specific identifier in association with a blockchain-based digital ledger entry to authenticate provenance of the NFT.
The limitations of independent claim 21 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” specifically commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The applicant’s claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and distributing user data based on relationships with brands. Accordingly, 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:
Computer system
Storage device
memory
network
digital content collector
digital collectible selector
digital collectible assessor
valuator
NFT converter
The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of retrieving, storing, filtering, scoring and recording) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 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.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer, or to any other technology, or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 22-40, appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 22-40 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. For example, claims merely further define or limit the value of the NFT, popularity, clout, scoring, etc. The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-25, 29, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al.(US 2021/0287195) in view of Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) Claim 21: Prakash discloses a computer system configured to determine the value of and to produce a non-fungible token (NFT), wherein the computer system comprises:
a storage device in communication with the digital content collector, wherein the storage device has a memory in which the digital content is stored in association with information relating to the creator;([0066], storage of media and [0084], then stored on a storage device. The storage device can be on the edge drone/camera/gimbal/edge gateway) or on a server.)
a digital collectible selector in communication with the storage device, and configured to filter and select at least some of the digital content from the storage device, and further configured to convert the at least some of the digital content into a digital collectible by; (see for example [0090] a professional curator may select the best shots of the day and place those digital collectibles in a marketplace for sale after getting approval from the user. Other contextual media may be added to the package and [0098], the system may then convert some or all of the captured images into digital collectibles)
a digital collectible assessor in communication with the digital collectible selector and configured to analyze information from the digital collectible selector related to the digital collectible and assess its value;(see for example [0069] making their photographs as digital collectibles (Non-Fungible Tokens) and curate them in order to establish a price rating, and an option to list them in a marketplace for the digital rights to the NFTs to be sold to the highest bidder.[0106] digital collectibles will be available for bidding (step 7007) and will be sold to the highest bidder)
an NFT converter in communication with the digital collectible assessor, wherein the NFT converter is configured to receive the digital collectible and the assessed value and to produce the NFT using the digital collectible and the assessed value using the digital collectible and the assessed value, and to record the assessed value and a creator-specific identifier in association with a blockchain-based digital ledger entry to authenticate provenance of the NFT. (see for example 0069] A user can optionally provide their preferences about making their photographs as digital collectibles (Non-Fungible Tokens) and curate them in order to establish a price rating, and an option to list them in a marketplace for the digital rights to the NFTs to be sold to the highest bidder. Also see [0102], the digital collectible will be created as a non-fungible token (“NFT”) using an ERC-721 contract (step S008), and the contract will also support Token Metadata (step S010) and enumerability and the tokens can be subsequently listed in a NFT token marketplace (step S002) and made available for purchase by market participants (step S006) in an open auction.) but does not explicitly disclose a digital content collector configured to accumulate digital content of a creator through a data-acquisition interface that retrieves digital media files and metadata from a plurality of sources over a network; However Baydurcan discloses digital content collector configured to accumulate digital content of a creator through a data-acquisition interface that retrieves digital media files and metadata from a plurality of sources over a network ([0076] 412 consolidating module (aggregator) [0077] 414 searching module (indexer) [0078] 418 sorter module [0079] 420 filter module [0080] 422 grouping module [0081] 502 Execute a build library command [0082] 504 Access each of a plurality of digital media sources for digital media items [0083] 506 Collect reference location and metadata for each of the digital media items from each of the plurality of digital media sources [0084] 508 Consolidate and store the reference location and metadata collected from each of the plurality of media sources into a database)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include digital content collector configured to accumulate digital content of a creator through a data-acquisition interface that retrieves digital media files and metadata from a plurality of sources over a network, in order to allow a user to access and view any digital media from one location using one user interface regardless of the actual location of the particular digital media. (see Baydurcan [0129]) Prakash and Baydurcan do not explicitly disclose executing machine implemented rules that analyze the digital content of the creator to identify at least of clout value, a popularity value or exclusivity values associated with the creator; using a valuator configured to determine an assessed value based at least in part on the at least one of the clout value, the popularity value, or the exclusivity value for the creator using scoring weights stored in the memory. However Bogaard discloses executing machine implemented rules that analyze the digital content of the creator to identify at least of clout value, a popularity value or exclusivity values associated with the creator; ([0040], discloses influence scores (e.g. clout) score being determined based on how people response to the creators content) using a valuator configured to determine an assessed value based at least in part on the at least one of the clout value, the popularity value, or the exclusivity value for the creator using scoring weights stored in the memory.([0051]. an influence score to define a scale to measure influence could weight data collected from fan interactions with influencer content)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Baydurcan to include executing machine implemented rules that analyze the digital content of the creator to identify at least of clout value, a popularity value or exclusivity values associated with the creator; using a valuator configured to determine an assessed value based at least in part on the at least one of the clout value, the popularity value, or the exclusivity value for the creator using scoring weights stored in the memory in order to allow a user to access and view any digital media from one location using one in order to properly assess the value of the creator of the content and reward the creator appropriately. ([0018] of Bogaard)
Claim 22: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, wherein the digital collectible selector is configured to select the at least some of the digital content based on criteria provided by a supervising entity. [0030, 0082, 0090, 0105]
Claim 23: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, wherein the digital collectible is a computer file including the digital content. [0069]
Claim 24: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, wherein the filter comprises one or more of (a) the digital content creator, (b) time span, (c) creation date, (d) content subject matter, (e) category, (f) type, (g) duration, (h) location, and (i) position. [0102]
Claim 25: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, wherein the digital collectible assessor is further configured to access the name of the creator of the digital content. [0027, 0102, 0109]
Claim 29: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the clout analyzer assigns the clout value a number.
However Bogaard discloses wherein the clout analyzer assigns the clout value a number.; ([0040], a score is inherently a number)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Baydurcan to include the clout analyzer assigns the clout value a number in order to properly perform calculations.
Claim 33: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the popularity analyzer assigns the popularity value a number.
However Bogaard discloses wherein the clout analyzer assigns the clout value a number.; ([0040], a score is inherently a number)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Baydurcan to include the clout analyzer assigns the popularity value a number in order to properly perform calculations.
Claim 35: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises an exclusivity analyzer configured to analyze information related to the digital collectible to determine an exclusivity value. [0069].
Claim(s) 26, 27, 32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) and Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667)
Claim 26: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital collectible assessor comprises a clout analyzer configured to analyze information related to the creator of the digital collectible in order to determine clout value. However Brougher discloses wherein the digital collectible assessor comprises a clout analyzer configured to analyze information related to the creator of the digital collectible in order to determine clout value. [0084]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include wherein the digital collectible assessor comprises a clout analyzer configured to analyze information related to the creator of the digital collectible in order to determine clout value, in order to determine which creator is considered more popular. (see abstract, Brougher)
Claim 27: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer is an aggregate measurement of the creator's influence as determined by information from the following that relate to the creator: (a) publications, (b) public and private databases, (c) social media networks and applications, (d) memberships, group affiliations, (e) business organizations, and (f) news articles. However Brougher discloses wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer is an aggregate measurement of the creator's influence as determined by information from the following that relate to the creator: (a) publications, (b) public and private databases, (c) social media networks and applications, (d) memberships, group affiliations, (e) business organizations, and (f) news articles.[0011, 0012, 0091] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer is an aggregate measurement of the creator's influence as determined by information from the following that relate to the creator: (a) publications, (b) public and private databases, (c) social media networks and applications, (d) memberships, group affiliations, (e) business organizations, and (f) news articles. in order to determine a creator’s credibility. (see [0119], Brougher)
Claim 32: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 31, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the popularity analyzer analyzes the following information related to a creator of the digital content to determine a popularity value: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications. However Brougher discloses wherein the popularity analyzer analyzes the following information related to a creator of the digital content to determine a popularity value: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications. [0009, 0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include wherein the popularity analyzer analyzes the following information related to a creator of the digital content to determine a popularity value: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications in order to gather information from multiple sources to determine popularity (e.g. ranking) (abstract Brougher )
Claim 37: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a valuator in communication with the clout analyzer, the popularity analyzer, and the exclusivity analyzer, and wherein the valuator is configured to determine the assessed value of the digital collectible based at least in part on (a) the clout value, (b) the popularity value, (c) the exclusivity value, and (d) a scoring weight, calculated by an adjuster in communication with the valuator, for each of the clout value, popularity value, and exclusivity value. However Brougher discloses wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a valuator in communication with the clout analyzer, the popularity analyzer, and the exclusivity analyzer, and wherein the valuator is configured to determine the assessed value of the digital collectible based at least in part on (a) the clout value, (b) the popularity value, (c) the exclusivity value, and (d) a scoring weight, calculated by an adjuster in communication with the valuator, for each of the clout value, popularity value, and exclusivity value.[0073, 0084, 0092, 0098]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a valuator in communication with the clout analyzer, the popularity analyzer, and the exclusivity analyzer, and wherein the valuator is configured to determine the assessed value of the digital collectible based at least in part on (a) the clout value, (b) the popularity value, (c) the exclusivity value, and (d) a scoring weight, calculated by an adjuster in communication with the valuator, for each of the clout value, popularity value, and exclusivity value in order to gather information from multiple sources to determine properly asses the value
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667) in view of Marrs et al. (US 6,726,767) Claim 38: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 37, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each scoring weight is a number between 0 and 1. However Marrs discloses wherein each scoring weight is a number between 0 and 1. (col. 12 lines 63-66)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash to include wherein each scoring weight is a number between 0 and 1 as taught by Marrs in order to ensure consistent scaling and proportional contribution of each factor to an overall score.
Claim(s) 28, 30, 31, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2016/0132904)
Claim 28: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer includes the creator's (a) number of social media followers, and (b) number and type of reactions to the creator's social media posts. However Mondal discloses wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer includes the creator's (a) number of social media followers, and (b) number and type of reactions to the creator's social media posts [0025, 0027, 0033]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer includes the creator's (a) number of social media followers, and (b) number and type of reactions to the creator's social media posts, in order to determine influence. (see [0035], Mondal)
Claim 30: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the clout analyzer changes the clout value over time based on the social media activity of the creator and of others who interact with the creator.
However Mondal discloses wherein the clout analyzer changes the clout value over time based on the social media activity of the creator and of others who interact with the creator.[0025,0033]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the clout value determined by the clout analyzer includes the creator's (a) number of social media followers, and (b) number and type of reactions to the creator's social media posts, in order to determine user engagement. (see [0033], Mondal)
Claim 31: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a popularity analyzer configured to determine a popularity value of a creator of the digital content.
However Mondal discloses wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a popularity analyzer configured to determine a popularity value of a creator of the digital content.[0027 and 0029]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the digital collectible assessor further comprises a popularity analyzer configured to determine a popularity value of a creator of the digital content, in order to determine to indicate to have another metric to determine influence (see [0034], Mondal)
Claim 34: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the popularity analyzer changes the popularity value over time based on changes to the creator's: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications.
However Mondal discloses wherein the popularity analyzer changes the popularity value over time based on changes to the creator's: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications.[0025,0033]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the popularity analyzer changes the popularity value over time based on changes to the creator's: (a) publications, (b) online media outlets, and (c) social media networks and applications, in order to determine user engagement. (see [0033], Mondal)
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667) in view of Wu et al. (US 8,676,812)
Claim 39: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 37, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjuster is further configured to adjust one or more of the scoring weights based on current event information. However Wu discloses wherein the adjuster is further configured to adjust one or more of the scoring weights based on current event information.(Col. 4 lines 39-45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the adjuster is further configured to adjust one or more of the scoring weights based on current event information, in order to adjust weights of factors that adjust with trends or current events.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667) in view of Sharda et al. (US 2023/0093031)
Claim 36: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 35, wherein the exclusivity analyzer determines the exclusivity value based on the quantity of the NFT to be made from the digital collectible.
Sharda teaches valuing an NFT based upon exclusivity/rarity/number of the NFTs in paragraph [0056.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the exclusivity analyzer determines the exclusivity value based on the quantity of the NFT to be made from the digital collectible, in order to increase the value of the NFT. (see Sharda [0056]).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2021/0287195) Baydurcan et al. (US 2014/0310237) in view of Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Brougher et al. (US 2009/0157667) in further view of Chakrabarti et al. (US 7,949,659) in further view of Page (US 6,799,176)
Claim 40: Prakash discloses the computer system of claim 37, but does note explicitly disclose wherein the valuator is further configured to access an experience value database that contains information relating to whether the creator has previously sold an NFT with an NFT marketplace, to determine an experience value based on the information, to: (a) compute an aggregate weighted value; and (b) normalize the aggregate weighted value to assign a normalized assessed value for the digital collectible.
However Chakrabarti discloses wherein the valuator is further configured to access an experience value database that contains information relating to whether the creator has previously sold an NFT with an NFT marketplace, to determine an experience value based on the information,(col. 6 lines 10-20, col 7 lines 1-10 and Col 8 lines 5-12) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include wherein the valuator is further configured to access an experience value database that contains information relating to whether the creator has previously sold an NFT with an NFT marketplace, to determine an experience value based on the information, in order to provide a metric to further filter information.
Prakash and Chakrabarti do not explicitly disclose to: (a) compute an aggregate weighted value; and (b) normalize the aggregate weighted value to assign a normalized assessed value for the digital collectible. However Page discloses to: (a) compute an aggregate weighted value; and (b) normalize the aggregate weighted value to assign a normalized assessed value for the digital collectible.(Col 3 lines 45-55)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prakash and Brougher to include (a) compute an aggregate weighted value; and (b) normalize the aggregate weighted value to assign a normalized assessed value for the digital collectible, to in order to determine which item has more value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in regards to the 112 rejection for the reasons stated above this rejection is maintained. Furthermore, the applicant states that a POSITA “would understand” that "existing" NFT generation methods mint a token recorded on a blockchain ledger and associate token metadata (e.g., via on-chain fields or a tokenURI) with that ledger entry for provenance, the Examiner respectfully disagrees a POSITA would understand is insufficient. A written "description must 'clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."' Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935 F .2d at 1563). "In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Id. (citing Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563). "Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, ... the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Put another way, "the applicant must ... convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64. Therefore the 35 U.S.C 112 first paragraph rejection is maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection the applicant argues that the claims improve the efficiency of using a computing device to assess an NFT’s value and cites [0082] of the specification, the Examiner respectfully disagrees while the applicant also cites [0014-0016, 0024, and 0027-0045] and also by the applicant’s own admission, the cited paragraphs merely possibly improves how to assess the value of NFT’s, but the cited paragraphs do not improve the functioning of the computer, other technology or technical field. As stated by the applicant the computer is merely used (as a tool) to assess an NFT value. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) The applicant also argues that claims are directed to particular machine implemented solution, not to appraisal performed mentally or to generic recordkeeping. Also cites Enfish and McRO, the Examiner respectfully disagrees first, the applicant has not clearly stated where in the specification identifies a technical problem, nor has the applicant identified in the specification that explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05(a)
Also the applicant’s claims are not equivalent to Enfish or McRo. In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. As with Enfish as stated above it was an improvement to how the computer functions, whereas the applicant’s claims merely use the computer as a tool to assess the value NFT’s. Assessing values do not improve how the computer functions. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. Also similar to Enfish, the specification was consulted and it was found to describe a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Whereas the applicant’s citations did not teach or suggest a specific way to solve a technical problem, that explains the details of an unconventional technical solution. As stated above the applicant’s claims are merely directed to assessing value of NFT’s, which is a business problem and not directed to a technical problem.
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection that the invention uses a particular machine and effect a transformation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees to be considered a particular machine Per MPEP 2106.05(b), it is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the recited computer system and associated computer components, such as the digital content collector, selector, assessor, and NFT converter are described at a high level of generality and perform generic data processing functions. As stated above generic computer implementation does not constitute a particular machine. Applicants argument regarding transformation is also not persuasive. The claimed invention merely manipulates digital information and as such is merely the manipulation of the abstract idea, rather than a transformation of an article into a different state or thing. MPEP 2106.05(C ) An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) Therefore a particular transformation is not relevant to the applicant’s claims, since the applicant’s claims are directed to the manipulation of data.
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection via Berkheimer. the Examiner respectfully disagrees Berkheimer evidence is not required, the Examiner has not asserted that any limitations are insignificant extra solution activity, nor has the Examiner stated that any limitations or additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional. Thus the Examiner is not required to provide Berkheimer evidence. (see MPEP 2106.07 states - At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is notintegrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount tosignificantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitationsare well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2b")
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not have limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection that the claim 21 does not disclose weighted valuation of a digital collectible based on clout, popularity, exclusivity, the examiner respectfully disagrees the limitation only requires one from the list. The Examiner selected clout be equivalent to the reference of Bogaard’s influencer score. Also Bogaard discloses using a weighted scoring at [0051]. an influence score to define a scale to measure influence could weight data collected from fan interactions with influencer content. Also see [0050, 0065].
The applicant further argues the 103 rejection by stating that the reference of Prakash does not disclose recording the assess value and a creator specific identifier on chain, It appears the applicant is arguing unclaimed features, the Examiner is unsure what the applicant means by “on-chain” thus this argument is moot. Furthermore since the applicant’s specification does not provide any support for the limitation the Examiner using broadest reasonable interpretation the claim was interpretated as applied by the reference of Prakash at [0102]. It is know in the technology of NFT’s that the ERC-721 , is an open-source standard on the Ethereum blockchain for creating and managing non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Every ERC-721 token is unique, with its own tokenId and metadata, allowing for distinct digital assets like collectibles, art, or in-game items. Figure 5 of the reference of Prakash provides the contents of ERC721 NFT smart contract.
The applicant argues the reference of Baydurcan does not disclose retrieving digital media files from multiple sources, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the reference of Bayduran discloses [0082] 504 Access each of a plurality of digital media sources for digital media items.
The applicant argues claim 35, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the reference of Prakash discloses establishing a price rating for an NFT. The applicant argues the motivation of claim 35, but claim 35 does not have a motivation. Thus, this argument is moot.
The applicant argues claims 26, 27, 32, 37, and 38 that the reference does not teach or suggest the core architecture and data flow recited in the claims. However, the aforementioned claims do not have limitations of core architecture and data flow, thus this argument is also moot.
The applicant further argues the 103 rejection by stating “adjuster component that calculates weights for each of clout, popularity, and exclusivity, communicates those weights to a valuator, and yields an assessed NFT value.” Foremost, it is impossible to know which claim the applicant is referring. Furthermore if the applicant is referring to claim 21, the limitation states “at least in part on the at least one of the clout value, the popularity value, or the exclusivity value..” The Examiner is only required to provide art that reads on one of the list. If the applicant intends for all 3 items to be considered, the claim should be amended and remove “at least one of” and also remove “or” and replace with “and”
The applicant argues claim 29, 33, 38, 39, and 40 due to the updated rejection above this argument is moot.
The applicant argues claims 36, by stating that the exclusivity analyzer computes the value from a declared mint value, this argument is moot due to the applicant arguing unclaimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights