DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 remain for examination. The amendment filed 9/8/25 amended claims 1, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20-23.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/8/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The objection of claims 15 & 22 as being substantial duplicates of claims 1 & 18 (respectively) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to those claims. Specifically, claims 1 & 18 were amended to stipulate that the invention “dynamically mints a token and allocates the token to a user wallet in response to a user’s location satisfying first criteria” [i.e. the token is created at the moment when the user proves that they are at a specific location], whereas in contrast claims 15 & 22 recite wherein the invention “allocates a pre-minted token to a user’s wallet in response to a user’s location satisfying the first location-based criteria” [i.e. the tokens were created at an earlier unspecified time, and one of these pre-existing tokens is dispensed to a user upon proving their location]. The Examiner accepts that the amended claims are now patentably distinct from each other, thus the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25 have been fully considered but, except where explicitly noted to the contrary, they are not persuasive. Regarding the Regner reference used to reject claims 16, 17, & 23, Applicant argues:
Specifically, in connection with Dynamic Token Minting, Regner purportedly discloses validating pre-existing NFTs for event entry but does not disclose minting tokens dynamically in response to location-based criteria as claimed. In connection with Experiential Tokens, the amended claims specify "experiential tokens" representing entitlement to experiences triggered by location-based events, which are absent in Regner. In connection with Token-Gated Resource Identifiers, Regner does not disclose storing or using token-gated resource identifiers (e.g., secret URLs) protected by tokens as claimed in amended claims 16 and 23.
Applicant respectfully submits that Regner fails to disclose all limitations of the amended claims, particularly those relating to dynamic minting of experiential tokens and token-gated resource identifiers.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “dynamically minting tokens in response to location based criteria”, “experiential tokens”, “secret URLs”) are not recited in rejected claims 16, 17, & 23. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is observed that Applicant’s arguments regarding Regner in the amendment of 9/8/25 are effectively verbatim from those presented on page 8 of the amendment filed 12/17/24, and are consequently rebutted for substantially reasons as stated in the Final Rejection of 3/6/25, reprinted below:
First, Examiner notes that claims 16 & 23 lack any recitation of “minting tokens dynamically in response to location-based criteria” since (a) the claims merely recite that the invention detects the presence of a pre-existing non-fungible token rather than dynamically creating [i.e. “minting”] one, and (b) there is no requirement in claims 16 & 23 that the access criteria include a location-based component; only dependent claim 17 stipulates that requirement, and even then as an option that could alternatively be replaced with time-based criteria, which the Regner reference explicitly teaches on page 9 as previously cited. Second, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, claims 16 & 23 do not in fact “specify ‘experiential tokens’ representing entitlement to experiences triggered by location based events” but merely that the non-fungible token grants access to a “resource”, wherein a resource is not limited to a location-based event but could be construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the specification as any physical item or digital content without limitation. Third, while claims 16 & 23 recite that the non-fungible token includes “a reference to [a] resource”, it does not follow that said reference must necessarily be a “secret URL” as argued by Applicant. Regner discloses wherein the NFTs used in that ticketing system include inter alia the name of the event (see Figure 1 on page 8, wherein “eventName” is the first criterion of an Ethereum ERC721-compliant NFT used by the Regner invention; see also Figure 2 on page 9, wherein the second line of text shows “Deploying contract for event MyConcert ( MC ) on 7/7/2020” [emphasis Examiner’s]). Clearly, the name of the event for which the corresponding NFT is used as a ticket to gain entry to, qualifies as a “reference to a resource” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in view of the instant specification.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan, Applicant argues (Remarks, page 12):
Specifically, in connection with Location-Based Events, Vijayan describes rewarding users with NFTs for sharing media consumption data but does not disclose minting tokens based on satisfying specific location-based criteria. In connection with Smart Contracts, while Vijayan mentions smart contracts, it does not teach invoking smart contracts to dynamically mint tokens based on real-time location validation. In connection with Experiential Tokens, Vijayan fails to disclose use of experiential tokens representing entitlement to experiences or their allocation based on location-triggered events.
Upon further consideration and review of the Vijayan reference, the Examiner now concedes that Vijayan, while disclosing the use of smart contracts to create and dynamically allocate NFTs to users who share their media consumption data (which in at least some embodiments includes location-based check-in data), there is no explicit disclosure that the act of minting the NFTs occurs as a direct consequence of verifying the location data. Accordingly, it is specifically for this reason that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan (along with the rejection[s] of the relevant dependent claims) is withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s subsequent assertion that Vijayan does not disclose the use of experiential tokens representing entitlement to experiences or their allocation based on location-triggered events. Vijayan repeatedly discloses wherein a user can be allocated one or more NFTs in exchange for uploading one’s media consumption data to the platform, which in at least one non-limiting embodiment includes providing one’s location data to prove that one is watching a movie at a movie theater (e.g. Vijayan at paragraphs 0069 & 0076). Furthermore, the NFTs that are given as rewards can subsequently be used inter alia as digital tickets to obtain access to all manner of events and experiences (Vijayan, paragraphs 0068, 0071, & 0103), hence they are “experiential tokens” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in view of the instant specification. However, assuming arguendo that the NFTs used by Vijayan were not “experiential tokens”, Examiner reminds Applicant that claim 1 does not require the tokens to be “experiential” in nature; the goal of claim 1 is to grant a user access to a “resource”, which is not limited to an “experience” but could be construed as any physical or digital item without limitation.
Regardless, the rejection of claim 1 (and its dependent claims) under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan is withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are presented based at least in part on the newly discovered reference to Sabintsev.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments traversing claim 1 are effectively verbatim to those presented in the amendment of 12/17/24. Accordingly, those arguments are either rebutted for substantially similar reasons as discussed in the Final Rejection of 3/6/25, or (regarding the specific limitation of dynamically minting tokens in response to a user’s location satisfying first location-based criteria) moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 15, 18, & 22, Applicant further argues (Remarks, page 16):
Independent claims 15, 18 and 22 include claim recitations to which the above arguments apply and for the above stated reasons they too are novel and non-obvious over Vijayan.
In response, while the Examiner concedes that the specific argument Applicant presented regarding the dynamic minting of tokens based on satisfying location-based criteria that overcomes the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan also overcomes the rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan, the same cannot be said for claims 15 & 22. Those claims were specifically amended to state that the tokens were pre-minted, presumably for distinguishing claims 15 & 22 from being duplicates of claims 1 & 18 as discussed supra; however, the fact remains that Vijayan discloses wherein the NFTs are created by the content creator, which are then subsequently issued by the content engagement platform to users as they upload their media consumption data including in at least some embodiments their location-based data. Absent an explicit disclosure from Vijayan that the NFTs were created as a direct result of the location-based check-in, the only remaining possibility is that the NFTs were already created at the time the platform allocates one to a user under the appropriate circumstances. Therefore, the rejection of claims 15 & 22 (as well as any claims dependent therefrom) under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan remains in effect.
Regarding claims 9 & 20, Applicant further argues (Remarks, pages 16-17):
Vijayan fails to disclose a method including the step of “in response to determining the user satisfies the location-based criteria, invoking a smart contract to dynamically mint a token and allocate an a cryptographic experiential token to a digital wallet associated with the user, the experiential token being associated with the experience.”
Examiner’s response to the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 9. The rejection of claims 9 & 20 (and corresponding dependent claims) under 35 USC 102 in view of Vijayan is withdrawn; however, new grounds of rejection are presented based at least in part on the newly discovered reference to Sabintsev.
Regarding claims 16 & 23, Applicant further argues (Remarks, page 18):
Independent Claims 16 and 23 includes claim recitation to which the above arguments apply and have been amended to further distinguish over Vijayan and obviate the rejection.
Examiner disagrees. As was previously discussed in the Final Rejection of 3/6/25, claims 16 & 23 are substantially broader in scope than the other claims of the instant application, and that many of the features that Applicant argued for which were present in the other claims are not found in claims 16 & 23. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification (i.e. location-based criteria, experiential tokens, minting the tokens [dynamically or otherwise], etc.) are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 16 & 23 merely recite a user attempting to access a resource (which is not limited to an “experience”) that requires the presence of a particular NFT having the appropriate criteria that would grant access to said resource; determining that said user possesses said NFT; and upon successfully determining that said user possesses said NFT, granting access to the resource. As discussed supra, this is clearly taught by Vijayan at paragraphs 0071 and 0073 as previously discussed, along with paragraphs 0103 and 0111 wherein a user who obtains an NFT can use said NFT to obtain access to all manner of content, products, discounts, and VIP access to experiences, which is all that is required by claims 16 & 23.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 103 in view of Vijayan and Garner, Applicant argues on pages 18-19:
As for claim 5, the Office Action combines Vijayan with Garner’s use of oracles for external data validation. In connection with Oracle Use, Garner discusses oracles for financial data validation but does not suggest their use for validating real-time location data as required by Claim 5. In connection with Distinct Domains, combining Vijayan’s media engagement platform with Garner’s financial lending system lacks motivation due to differing technical fields and objectives. Applicant respectfully submits that the combination fails to render claim 5 obvious because neither reference suggests or teaches dynamic location-based token minting via oracles.
Examiner disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that Garner is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both references are analogous in that they disclose applications for blockchain technology, and particularly using smart contracts to perform useful functionality. As established supra, Vijayan discloses the use of smart contracts to create NFTs that in at least one embodiment may be based on location data, but is otherwise silent as to exactly how the smart contract utilizes location data to make the determination of whether or not to mint the NFT. When read in that light, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably look for guidance as to how to implement such a smart contract; one such reference is found in the Garner disclosure, which notably teaches the following at col. 5, lines 11-35, as general knowledge in the prior art:
Advantageously, according to various embodiments, the templates can be generated based on DLT-based oracles. As used herein, the term “oracle” refers to retrievably stored (e.g., in non-transitory memory) executable code that includes a callable reference to at least one smart contract executable. In various embodiments, an oracle can be structured as an intermediary layer between external data sources (e.g., sources of data related to participant identity information, participant financial information, loan terms, loan pricing, geolocation, and disaster related data) and smart contract executables that generate loan agreements using the provided data. Accordingly, oracles provide a technical advantage of verifying and/or authenticating external data sources as well as querying external data resources, which preserves network bandwidth by eliminating the need for smart contract executables to perform these operations. Further, this architecture minimizes the number of changes required to smart contracts as external data sources and their authentication requirements change. Further, using oracles as an intermediary layer presents a technical improvement in data provenance verification, as counterparty smart contracts are prevented from each independently querying the data sources and being vulnerable to manipulation (e.g., via code injection) of data sources to set terms more favorable to a particular party than is warranted by the external data.
Garner teaches that oracles were a known technology designed to supplement smart contracts by providing them access to external sources of information, with the technical benefits including but not limited to reduced network bandwidth and improved data provenance verification; and as the oracles in Garner’s invention are explicitly disclosed as being capable of processing location data on behalf of a smart contract to determine if an action should proceed (Garner, Abstract and col. 1, lines 50-60), then it follows that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of blockchain technology would consider using an oracle to implement the location-based verification technology that is explicitly permitted by Vijayan to implement that embodiment of his invention.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 103 in view of Vijayan and Nagao, Applicant argues on page 19:
As for claim 6, the Office Action combines Vijayan with Nagao’s disclosure of secret URLs protected by tokens. In connection with Token-Gated Resource Identifiers, Nagao discusses protecting URLs in DRM systems but does not teach dynamically storing token-gated resource identifiers based on real-time token minting as claimed in claim 6. Moreover, there is no Suggestion to Combine Vijayan with Nagao. Specifically, neither reference in the combination provides the necessary suggestion or motivation to modify Vijayan’s system with Nagao ’s DRM-focused URL protection mechanisms. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 6 recites novel features absent from both references and is therefore non-obvious.
Examiner disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, note that claim 6 (and its parent, claim 1) are directed toward protecting access to a “resource”, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term can include various forms of digital content. As noted supra, Vijayan allows users, who receive NFTs in exchange for sharing inter alia location data with the platform, to use those NFTs to obtain additional rewards, including “private access to premium content and experiences” (Vijayan, paragraph 0068). The ability to restrict digital content for limited, private access would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that some form of digital rights management [DRM] technology would be useful for that purpose; and as Nagao discloses using tokens comprising secret URLs to enforce private access to digital content, the Examiner maintains that the motivation to combine Vijayan (which discloses using tokens to gate access to inter alia premium digital content) with Nagao (which discloses using tokens comprising secret URLs to gate access to digital content) would be self-evident, to achieve the predictable result of ensuring that premium content can only be accessed by those entitled to access it.
Further regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues on page 19:
Moreover, the relied on combinations attempt to combine the teachings from non- analogous art. Specifically, Regner focuses on event ticketing systems, while Nagao addresses DRM systems. These references are non-analogous art unrelated to Applicant's invention of dynamic location-based token minting and experiential tokens.
Still further, the teachings of the respective art teach away from the other and from the combination. Specifically, the cited references do not suggest combining their teachings in a manner consistent with Applicant's invention. For example, Garner emphasizes financial data validation, which is incompatible with Vijayan's media engagement platform.
Still further, the invention as expressed in the recited claims produced Unexpected Results. Specifically, the invention achieves unexpected results by enabling secure, real-time allocation of experiential tokens based on validated location data using smart contracts-features absent from the prior art for the reasons set forth above.
Taking each argument in order:
The argument pertaining to Regner is moot as Regner was not cited in the rejection of claims 5 & 6, either alone or in combination with Vijayan, Garner, and/or Nagao;
Examiner maintains that Garner and Vijayan do not teach away from each other, for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra in the rebuttal to Applicant’s argument against claim 5; and
The “unexpected result” of allocating experiential tokens based on location data using smart contracts is explicitly disclosed by Vijayan as discussed supra, including but not limited to paragraphs 0068 & 0071 wherein the NFTs generated by the invention can be used to gain access to experiences, etc.
In summary: the previous rejection(s) of claims 15-17 and 22-23 are maintained. The previous rejection(s) of claims 1-14 & 18-21 are withdrawn; however, new grounds of rejection are presented herein based at least in part on the newly discovered reference to Sabintsev.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "in response to determining the user satisfies the first location-based criteria, invoking a smart contract to dynamically mint a token and allocate a cryptographic experiential token to a digital wallet associated with the user, the experiential token being associated with the experience" [emphasis Examiner’s]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the term “the experiential token” could refer to either the “a token” or the “a cryptographic experiential token”, or it could be an entirely separate token from either of those. The Examiner notes for the record that parallel claim 20 has no issue with indefiniteness as it consistently uses the term “experiential token” for all recitations of tokens therein.
Claims 10, 11, & 13 also explicitly recite “the experiential token”, and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra.
Claim 12 recites “the token”, which similarly renders it indefinite as it is unclear as to which of the three tokens from parent claim 9 is being referred to.
Claim 14 is rejected solely by virtue of dependence on claims 9 & 13.
Claims 16, 17, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant regards as the invention. Evidence that claims 16, 17, & 23 fail to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the Applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 9/8/25. On page 11 of that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the Applicant repeats the argument from the previous amendment of 12/17/24 (page 8), stating the following:
Specifically, in connection with Dynamic Token Minting, Regner purportedly discloses validating pre-existing NFTs for event entry but does not disclose minting tokens dynamically in response to location-based criteria as claimed. In connection with Experiential Tokens, the amended claims specify "experiential tokens" representing entitlement to experiences triggered by location-based events, which are absent in Regner. In connection with Token-Gated Resource Identifiers, Regner does not disclose storing or using token-gated resource identifiers (e.g., secret URLs) protected by tokens as claimed in amended claims 16 and 23.
Applicant respectfully submits that Regner fails to disclose all limitations of the amended claims, particularly those relating to dynamic minting of experiential tokens and token-gated resource identifiers.
This statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claims because as discussed supra none of the features attributed to claims 16, 17, & 23 by the Applicant are actually present in the text of those claims. Applicant’s repeated insistence to the contrary calls into question what the scope of these particular claims was intended to be, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16, 17, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “NFTs in Practice – Non-Fungible Tokens as Core Component of a Blockchain-based Event Ticketing Application” (hereinafter, “Regner”).
Regarding claims 16 and 23:
Regner discloses a method and system for granting token-gated access to a resource based on a non-fungible token including a reference to the resource (Abstract, and page 5, “Research contributions”: “Our contribution is to demonstrate the usefulness of NFTs in the domain of event tickets in scientific rigor”; see also Figures 1 & 2 regarding the NFT containing the name of the event, i.e. a reference to a resource), the method comprising: storing access criteria associated with a resource (i.e. the inherent requirement that one must possess an NFT that specifically acts as a ticket to gain entry to a particular event: see e.g. pages 1-3, “Introduction”, including but not limited to “Therefore, we design and implement a prototype based on NFTs for a decentralized, blockchain-based event ticketing system that aims to replace the existing centralized ticket applications” and “First, through creating a working prototype as resulting artifact, we demonstrate the feasibility of a blockchain-based solution with NFTs as a core component for the domain of event ticketing systems”), the access criteria including a set of token criteria (page 9, 1st paragraph “(1) Setup phase”: each NFT usable as a ticket to entry includes criteria such as inter alia “the name of the specific event, an initial ticket price, a maximum price factor for tickets, the event start datetime [sic], the maximum amount of tickets available and an initial transaction fee for secondary ticket transactions”; see also the structure of the NFT in Figure 1 which include additional criteria); based at least in part on the set of token criteria, determining a user possesses the non-fungible token including a reference to a resource and satisfies the access criteria (page 9, “(3) Secondary market”: “The organizer can call setTickettoUsed() to validate a ticket at the venue”; and page 12, “DO5 – Validation” regarding using the NFT for access control at a physical venue; noting further that the invention must inherently check that any NFT presented by a user for entry to an event must be one that was specifically minted with the aforementioned criteria to establish it as a valid ticket for said event, as failure to do so would entirely defeat the purpose of the Regner invention as otherwise any user could present any arbitrary NFT in their wallet to fraudulently gain access to an event: see Regner, page 2: “We have chosen tickets as persuasive example because 1) current solutions typically face problems such as fraud, counterfeiting and limited control over secondary transactions...Thereby, we illustrate that many existing problems in the ticketing industry such as fraud, lack of trust and limited control over secondary grey markets can be overcome by switching to a blockchain-based solution that utilizes NFTs.”); and in response to determining the user possesses the non-fungible token including the reference to the resource, granting the user access to the resource (pages 9 & 12, Ibid). Specific to claim 23, a processor is inherently required to execute the smart contract functions such as inter alia the setTickettoUsed() function for the disclosed ticketing system.
Regarding claim 17:
Regner further discloses wherein the access criteria include one or both of location-based criteria and/or time-based criteria (date and time of the event explicitly listed as access criteria at page 9, 1st paragraph “(1) Setup phase”).
Claims 15-17 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vijayan (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0005284).
Regarding claims 15 and 22:
Vijayan discloses a method and system for granting token-gated access to a resource at a location based on location-triggered events and providing access to token-gated content in response to a user satisfying specified token criteria (paragraphs 0065-0071), the method comprising:
storing location-based criteria comprising first location-based criteria (e.g. storing the location of a movie theater in the embodiment where a user has to prove that they are physically present therein in order to receive an NFT as a reward, as per paragraphs 0069 & 0076; see also paragraph 0094, particularly the last sentence: “Where the source of the media consumption data is highly reliable, the media consumption data can include granular metadata including (but not limited to) receipt ID, content ID, method of delivery, player software version, operating system, operating system version, device time, resolution, codec, average bandwidth, network connection time, geographic location, start time, duration, and/or stop time.” [emphasis Examiner’s]);
storing a smart contract comprising computer code configured to execute a rule based at least in part on the first location-based criteria to allocate a pre-minted token to a user wallet in response to a user's location satisfying first location-based criteria (paragraphs 0066-0067 & 0073-0076, including but not limited to ¶0066: “NFTs can be implemented on blockchains that support smart contracts in a manner that results in verifiable scarcity. In many instances, each NFT has a unique serial number and the NFT smart contract defines an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded”; ¶0074: “As is discussed further below, content owners 104 can provide the NFTs 106 to users to reward and/or incentivize engagement with particular pieces of content and/or other user behavior including (but not limited to) the sharing of user personal information (e.g. contact information or user ID information on particular services), demographic information, and/or media consumption data with the content creator and/or other entities” [emphasis Examiner’s] and ¶0076: “In several embodiments, the media wallet application 110 is capable of collecting observations concerning user behavior including (but not limited to) media consumption behavior. When the media wallet application 110 is installed upon a user device that is also used to consume media from media services 112 and/or is present when the user is consuming media in other ways (e.g. viewing content on a home theater or at a movie theater), then the media wallet application 110 can capture observations related to media playback on the device using a variety of techniques including (but not limited to) … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater…” [emphasis Examiner’s]; see also paragraph 0048: “In still yet another embodiment, the NFT comprises data selected from the group of…bytecode specifying at least one transaction rule with respect to the NFT…”);
obtaining location information from a user device (e.g. paragraphs 0022: “…where the observation data comprises at least one piece of data selected from a group including: … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater”; & ¶0042: “…observation data comprises at least one piece of data selected from the group including: … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater”; see also paragraphs 0069 & 0076);
in response to a determination that the location information satisfies the first location-based criteria, invoking the smart contract to dynamically trigger an instruction for a pre-minted token and allocate the pre-minted token to a user wallet (paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences”; see also paragraph 0066: “In many instances, each NFT has a unique serial number and the NFT smart contract defines an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded” and paragraph 0073: “In a number of embodiments, digital tickets minted as NFTs can be utilized to establish proof of ownership of tickets at ticketed events (reducing fraud)… As can readily be appreciated, the flexibility of the smart contracts underlying NFTs means that any of a variety of NFTs can be issued as appropriate to the requirements of a given application in accordance with various embodiments of the invention”; and paragraph 0074: “In addition, the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs can cause payments of residual royalties to content creators 104 when users engage in specific transactions involving NFTs (e.g. transfer of ownership of the NFT)”, i.e. a smart contract is necessarily invoked whenever ownership of an NFT changes hands; and paragraph 0107 wherein access to a resource such as a collectible is governed by the smart contract);
storing a token-gated resource identifier for a resource associated with the location-based criteria (paragraph 0068, including: “NFTs can be created around a large range of real world media content and intellectual property. Movie studios can mint digital collectibles for their movies, characters, notable scenes and/or notable objects. Record labels can mint digital collectibles for artists, bands, albums and/or songs. Similarly, official digital trading cards can be made from likeness of celebrities, cartoon characters and/or gaming avatars. Virtually any media intellectual property that can be merchandised and licensed in the real world can also be tokenized into a digital collectible”; see also paragraph 0048: “In still yet another embodiment, the NFT comprises data selected from the group including: …a pointer to a piece of content; …and metadata describing the NFT”; and paragraph 0103: “In many embodiments, the NFTs are digital collectibles such as celebrity NFTs 310, character NFTs from games 312, NFTs that are redeemable within games 312, and/or NFTs that contain and/or enable access to custom content 314 (including augmented reality content that is location dependent 316). In many embodiments, the NFTs can enable access to specific real world experiences in the form of digital tickets 318 similar to the digital tickets described above and/or vouchers 320 that can be exchanged for or entitle the holder to a discount for physical merchandise and/or collectables” [emphasis Examiner’s]);
storing token criteria (Ibid; see also paragraph 0068: “In many embodiments, each NFT has a set of attributes that define its unique properties. These can be interpreted differently by various platforms in order to create platform specific user experiences. The metadata associated with an NFT may also include digital media assets such as (but not limited to) images, videos about the specific NFT or the context in which it was created (studio, film, band, company song etc.)”);
and in response to a determination that the user satisfies the token criteria, granting the user access to the resource (paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences. As part of the platform, media wallets can offer consumers a vehicle for benefiting their fandom by opting in to share their consumption behavior in exchange for product discounts, VIP access and a variety of gamified fan experiences with their favorite content creators. Furthermore, media wallets can enable users to obtain NFTs that prove purchase of rights to access a particular piece of media content on one platform and use the NFT to gain access to the purchased content on another platform”; i.e. once a user obtains an NFT as a reward for sharing the media consumption data [which in at least one embodiment includes location-based data], the user can then present the NFT for access to all manner of resources, including inter alia wherein the NFT is a ticket to a live event: see also paragraph 0073: “In a number of embodiments, digital tickets minted as NFTs can be utilized to establish proof of ownership of tickets at ticketed events (reducing fraud)”).
Specific to claim 22, Vijayan further discloses a processor programmed with instructions to perform these limitations (paragraphs 0011-0014 and 0018-0022).
Regarding claims 16 and 23:
Vijayan discloses a method and system for granting token-gated access to a resource based on a non-fungible token including a reference to the resource (paragraphs 0065-0069), the method comprising: storing access criteria associated with a resource (e.g. paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences. As part of the platform, media wallets can offer consumers a vehicle for benefiting their fandom by opting in to share their consumption behavior in exchange for product discounts, VIP access and a variety of gamified fan experiences with their favorite content creators. Furthermore, media wallets can enable users to obtain NFTs that prove purchase of rights to access a particular piece of media content on one platform and use the NFT to gain access to the purchased content on another platform” and paragraph 0073: “In a number of embodiments, digital tickets minted as NFTs can be utilized to establish proof of ownership of tickets at ticketed events (reducing fraud)”; i.e. in at least one embodiment the products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences, etc. require the user to possess an NFT that will entitle the user to access them; thus the need to own the applicable NFT is the access criteria for obtaining the product discount, VIP access, etc.), the access criteria including a set of token criteria (paragraph 0068, including: “NFTs can be created around a large range of real world media content and intellectual property. Movie studios can mint digital collectibles for their movies, characters, notable scenes and/or notable objects. Record labels can mint digital collectibles for artists, bands, albums and/or songs. Similarly, official digital trading cards can be made from likeness of celebrities, cartoon characters and/or gaming avatars. Virtually any media intellectual property that can be merchandised and licensed in the real world can also be tokenized into a digital collectible”; see also paragraph 0048: “In still yet another embodiment, the NFT comprises data selected from the group including: …a pointer to a piece of content; …and metadata describing the NFT”; and paragraph 0103: “In many embodiments, the NFTs are digital collectibles such as celebrity NFTs 310, character NFTs from games 312, NFTs that are redeemable within games 312, and/or NFTs that contain and/or enable access to custom content 314 (including augmented reality content that is location dependent 316). In many embodiments, the NFTs can enable access to specific real world experiences in the form of digital tickets 318 similar to the digital tickets described above and/or vouchers 320 that can be exchanged for or entitle the holder to a discount for physical merchandise and/or collectables” [emphasis Examiner’s]); determining a user possesses the non-fungible token including a reference to a resource and satisfies the access criteria (Ibid; see also paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences…Furthermore, media wallets can enable users to obtain NFTs that prove purchase of rights to access a particular piece of media content on one platform and use the NFT to gain access to the purchased content on another platform.”); and in response to determining the user possesses the non-fungible token including the reference to the resource, granting the user access to the resource (Ibid; if the user has the NFT that entitles one to the corresponding product/discount/event/experience/etc., then said user gains access to said corresponding product/discount/event/experience/etc.). Specific to claim 23, Vijayan further discloses a processor to perform these limitations (paragraphs 0011-0014 and 0018-0022).
Regarding claim 17:
Vijayan further discloses wherein the access criteria include one or both of location-based criteria and/or time-based criteria (paragraph 0094, last sentence; see also paragraph 0073 wherein the NFTs can be used as digital tickets to gain access to a live event at a physical venue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-14, & 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Sabintsev (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0374902).
Regarding claims 1 and 18:
Vijayan discloses a method and system for minting and allocating tokens based on location-triggered events and providing access to token-gated content in response to a user satisfying specified token criteria (paragraphs 0065-0071), the method comprising:
storing location-based criteria (e.g. storing the location of a movie theater in the embodiment where a user has to prove that they are physically present therein in order to receive an NFT as a reward, as per paragraphs 0069 & 0076; see also paragraph 0094, particularly the last sentence: “Where the source of the media consumption data is highly reliable, the media consumption data can include granular metadata including (but not limited to) receipt ID, content ID, method of delivery, player software version, operating system, operating system version, device time, resolution, codec, average bandwidth, network connection time, geographic location, start time, duration, and/or stop time.” [emphasis Examiner’s]);
storing a smart contract comprising computer code configured to mint a token and also to allocate the token to a user wallet in response to a user's location satisfying first location-based criteria (paragraphs 0066-0067 & 0073-0076, including but not limited to ¶0066: “NFTs can be implemented on blockchains that support smart contracts in a manner that results in verifiable scarcity. In many instances, each NFT has a unique serial number and the NFT smart contract defines an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded”; ¶0074: “As is discussed further below, content owners 104 can provide the NFTs 106 to users to reward and/or incentivize engagement with particular pieces of content and/or other user behavior including (but not limited to) the sharing of user personal information (e.g. contact information or user ID information on particular services), demographic information, and/or media consumption data with the content creator and/or other entities” [emphasis Examiner’s]; and ¶0076: “In several embodiments, the media wallet application 110 is capable of collecting observations concerning user behavior including (but not limited to) media consumption behavior. When the media wallet application 110 is installed upon a user device that is also used to consume media from media services 112 and/or is present when the user is consuming media in other ways (e.g. viewing content on a home theater or at a movie theater), then the media wallet application 110 can capture observations related to media playback on the device using a variety of techniques including (but not limited to) … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater…” [emphasis Examiner’s]; see also paragraph 0048: “In still yet another embodiment, the NFT comprises data selected from the group of…bytecode specifying at least one transaction rule with respect to the NFT…”);
obtaining location information from a user device (e.g. paragraphs 0022: “…where the observation data comprises at least one piece of data selected from a group including: … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater”; & ¶0042: “…observation data comprises at least one piece of data selected from the group including: … location based check-in with respect to media viewed at a movie theater”; see also paragraphs 0069 & 0076);
in response to a determination that the location information satisfies the location-based criteria, invoking the smart contract to allocate a token to a user wallet (paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences”; see also paragraph 0066: “In many instances, each NFT has a unique serial number and the NFT smart contract defines an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded” and paragraph 0073: “In a number of embodiments, digital tickets minted as NFTs can be utilized to establish proof of ownership of tickets at ticketed events (reducing fraud)… As can readily be appreciated, the flexibility of the smart contracts underlying NFTs means that any of a variety of NFTs can be issued as appropriate to the requirements of a given application in accordance with various embodiments of the invention”; and paragraph 0074: “In addition, the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs can cause payments of residual royalties to content creators 104 when users engage in specific transactions involving NFTs (e.g. transfer of ownership of the NFT)”, i.e. a smart contract is necessarily invoked whenever ownership of an NFT changes hands; see also paragraph 0107 wherein access to a resource such as a collectible is governed by the smart contract);
storing a token-gated resource identifier for a resource and token criteria (paragraph 0068, including: “NFTs can be created around a large range of real world media content and intellectual property. Movie studios can mint digital collectibles for their movies, characters, notable scenes and/or notable objects. Record labels can mint digital collectibles for artists, bands, albums and/or songs. Similarly, official digital trading cards can be made from likeness of celebrities, cartoon characters and/or gaming avatars. Virtually any media intellectual property that can be merchandised and licensed in the real world can also be tokenized into a digital collectible… In many embodiments, each NFT has a set of attributes that define its unique properties. These can be interpreted differently by various platforms in order to create platform specific user experiences. The metadata associated with an NFT may also include digital media assets such as (but not limited to) images, videos about the specific NFT or the context in which it was created (studio, film, band, company song etc.)”; see also paragraph 0048: “In still yet another embodiment, the NFT comprises data selected from the group including: …a pointer to a piece of content; …and metadata describing the NFT”; and paragraph 0103: “In many embodiments, the NFTs are digital collectibles such as celebrity NFTs 310, character NFTs from games 312, NFTs that are redeemable within games 312, and/or NFTs that contain and/or enable access to custom content 314 (including augmented reality content that is location dependent 316). In many embodiments, the NFTs can enable access to specific real world experiences in the form of digital tickets 318 similar to the digital tickets described above and/or vouchers 320 that can be exchanged for or entitle the holder to a discount for physical merchandise and/or collectables” [emphasis Examiner’s]);
and in response to a determination that the user satisfies the token criteria, granting the user access to the resource (paragraph 0071: “Consumers can opt-in to sharing their consumption data with content creators in exchange for fungible tokens and/or NFTs, which can be traded to other users or exchanged for products, discounts, VIP access to events and/or experiences. As part of the platform, media wallets can offer consumers a vehicle for benef