DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on September 2, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 rejections, Applicant’s remarks on pages 15-16 provides a review of Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The remarks on pages 17-19 provides the amended claims with cited support in the published Specification. On page 20, Applicant states that the claims have been amended according to the discussion during the examiner Interview on August 25, 2025.
The examiner notes that it was discussed in the examiner Interview, that amending claims to recite how a badge is linked to an NFT and how the badge is created could help overcoming 101 rejection. However, the current amendment do not provide any details on the link between a badge and an NFT, other than the badge shows NFT ownership, or a process for badge creation.
Applicant argues, on page 20, that the amended claim recites that the badges include a graphical element, and that the profile is a web-based profile, and that the blockchain is monitored in real-time to identify transactions involving the wallet. The examiner notes that the amendments describe automating functions that merely use one or more computers as tools to perform the abstract idea of creating badges. However, the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant further argues on page 20, that claim features such as, monitoring a blockchain in real-time to identify transaction involving the cryptocurrency wallet, conditions for creating the badges pertain to NFT ownership, and wallet being linked to a web-based profile, do not fall into any of the subject matter groupings of abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claimed feature in fact indicates steps for automating badge creation based on user ownership of assets and user’s wallet activity.
Applicant, on pages 21-22, provides a summary of prong(ii) step 2A. On page 22, Applicant argues that the present invention pertains to controlling access to a secure computing resource based on blockchain activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that based on claim recitations, and according to Applicant’s further discussion on page 22, the claims provide access to a resource based on a user profile which includes badges pertaining to user’s ownership of assets, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on page 22, that the invention embodiments improve security for access control and computer performance by enabling blockchain-based authentication of users without the cost of accessing and searching the blockchain. The examiner respectfully notes that such feature is not claimed.
Applicant further argues, that since the badges are securely tied to a user's wallet activity, the badges can be used to quickly authenticate the user for the computing resource without needing to access and perform a costly transaction search on a blockchain. And further that present invention enables off-blockchain computing resources to leverage blockchain security for authentication by enabling blockchain authentication for access to off-blockchain computing resources. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not include any features related to transaction search on the blockchain and/or leveraging blockchain security. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s reasoning that the claims incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to the 112 rejections, the claim amendment overcomes the rejections and the rejections are withdrawn.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1,3 and 3-7 are directed to a method (process), claims 8, 10 and 12-14 are directed to a system (product). Claims 15, 17 and 19-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (product) Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-21 are directed to the abstract idea of providing access to a resource to a user based on a user profile. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea, and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15, recite:
linking, via at least one processor, a cryptocurrency wallet associated with a user with a web-based profile of the user, wherein a plurality of badges each include a graphical element and are associated with conditions pertaining to ownership of non-fungible tokens, and wherein the web-based profile of the user includes at least one badge added to the web-based profile to indicate non-fungible tokens owned by the user in the cryptocurrency wallet;
monitoring, via the at least one processor, a blockchain to identify transactions involving the cryptocurrency wallet, wherein the blockchain is monitored in real-time as new blocks are added to the blockchain;
determining, via the at least one processor, that the cryptocurrency wallet has engaged in at least one transaction on the blockchain, wherein the at least one transaction comprises sending or receiving a non-fungible token;
determining, via the at least one processor, satisfaction of the conditions associated with the plurality of badges based on the at least one transaction;
updating, via the at least one processor, the web-based profile of the user by adding a badge to the web-based profile of the user when the conditions associated with the badge are satisfied and removing an added badge from the profile of the user when the conditions associated with the added badge are no longer satisfied, wherein the profile of the user, including current badges, is stored in an off-blockchain storage;
receiving, via the at least one processor, a request from the user to access a computing resource;
accessing, via the at least one processor, the web-based profile of the user to retrieve information of the current badges;
granting access to the computing resource, via the at least one processor, based on the current badges satisfying access conditions for the computing resource, wherein the access conditions pertain to a presence of particular badges in the web-based profile of the user; and
denying access to the computing resource, via the at least one processor, based on the current badges failing to satisfy the access conditions for the computing resource.
The claim recitation is directed to providing access to a resource to a user based on a user profile. Therefore, the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for providing access to a resource to a user based on a user profile. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of at least one processor, a web-based profile, a cryptocurrency wallet, a blockchain, new blocks added to a blockchain, monitoring a blockchain in real-time, an off-blockchain storage, a server, computer resources, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of at least one processor, a web-based profile, a cryptocurrency wallet, a blockchain, new blocks added to a blockchain, monitoring a blockchain in real-time, an off-blockchain storage, a server, computer resources, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) ). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 recite:
determining, via the at least one processor, that the cryptocurrency wallet has engaged in a subsequent transaction involving a component of a previous transaction; and
updating, via the at least one processor, the web-based profile of the user to modify or remove a badge associated with the previous transaction, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 recite:
wherein the badge added to the web-based profile of the user is associated with the at least one transaction according to a predefined association, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 recite:
wherein the badge added to update the web-based profile of the user comprises a placeholder badge that is selected in response to no predefined badge being associated with the at least one transaction, which further describes the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 21 recite:
wherein the badge added to update the web-based profile of the user is identified based on a count of items stored in the cryptocurrency wallet, which further describes the abstract idea.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698