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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final office action on 11/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 16 and has canceled claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 20. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 12, 15-17 and 19 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
With regard to 101, applicant argues that the claim method does not involve the use of any abstract ideas because virtual accessories and non-fungible tokens are inherently computer-based and has no analog in the physical world. Thus, claim 1 relates to problems inherent to the computing domain based on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claims as recited do involve the use of an abstract idea. The claims recite client devices requesting to register virtual accessories for use during a virtual conference, determining whether to deny the use of the virtual accessory based on a similarity of the virtual accessory to virtual accessories already registered in an NFT registry within blockchain records of a blockchain. Examiner asserts that this does fall within certain methods of organizing human activity as this process involves managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as social activities and interactions within conferences among individuals where individuals are able to use virtual accessories such as virtual backgrounds or avatars to represent themselves during the conference or meeting.
Applicant’s claims are not similar to the subject matter found eligible in the DDR Holdings case which was related to the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after “clicking” on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. The claims in the DDR case resulted in an improvement that was not a routine “use of the internet” but rather specified how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result – a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. Applicant’s claims are not similar to this process and do not provide a similar improvement to technology.
Applicant’s claims are not similar to the subject matter found in the Enfish LLC case which was related to improvements in referencing data within databases by using a single table structure that would normally appear in several different tables. This single “self-referencial” table structure and arrangement results in faster look-ups, more efficient storage of data other than structured text and no requirement to model each item in the database as a separate table. Applicant’s claims offer not such similar improvement to technology.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 recites a practical application because a virtual conference provider determines whether a virtual accessory should be allowed for usage or denied based on its similarity to any NFTs registered within a blockchain having information about registered virtual accessories. Similarity is assessed based on recognized identifiers within the virtual accessory and virtual accessories registered based on NFTs stored on the blockchain. Examiner asserts however, that this does not represent an improvement to computer functionality as the computer is being used as a tool to implement typical computer functions as it normally would. With regard to claim 1, the claimed processor performs basic computer functionality in terms of receiving information regarding a virtual accessory and compares that information with information from a blockchain database to determine if the information is similar based on identifier data. This does not represent an improvement to computer functionality as the computer is merely being used as tool to operate as it normally would. According to MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is an example that courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, examiner asserts that viewed as a whole, the additional elements in the claims are used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer 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) and Vanda Memo). 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.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s remarks with respect to 103 have been considered and are considered persuasive. As a result, the prior art rejection has been 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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The analysis of the claims is based on the subject matter eligibility test that is detailed in the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Guidance Update Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update)(July 2024), the 2019 Revision to the SME Guidance (2019 PEG)(January 2019) and the October 2019 SME Guidance Update (October 2019). The current guidance is referenced in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) sections 2103 through 2106.07.
In Step 1 of the test, the claims were found to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, which is process. Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 recite a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a communication interface, and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the process; claims 8-9 and 12 recite a method of performing the process; and claims 15-17 and 19 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform the process. Therefore, the result of Step 1 is the claims are directed to at least one statutory category.
In Step 2A(1), the claims were found to recite an abstract idea. The claims 1, 8 and 15 recite as follows:
receiving, from a first client device, a virtual accessory for use during a virtual conference;
receiving, from a first client device, a request to register the virtual accessory;
accessing an NFT registry to determine a similarity between the virtual accessory and a set of virtual accessories corresponding to NFTs registered in the NFT registry, the NFT registry comprising a blockchain having a plurality of blockchain records, the accessing comprising accessing a plurality of blockchain records corresponding to NFTs;
determining a similarity between the virtual accessory and one or more NFTs registered in the NFT registry based on one or more identifiers within the virtual accessory, and;
after determining that the similarity between the virtual accessory and at least one of the one or more NFTs registered in the NFT registry satisfies a threshold, deny registration of the virtual accessory and deny permission to use the virtual accessory during the virtual conference.
The emphasized elements are describing an abstract idea. An accessory is received by the user is requested to be registered, using a token for verification of the accessory. The accessories are virtual data and the NFT is a token. The claims recite client devices requesting to register virtual accessories for use during a virtual conference, determining whether to deny the use of the virtual accessory based on a similarity of the virtual accessory to virtual accessories already registered in an NFT registry within blockchain records of a blockchain. Examiner asserts that this does fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as this process involves managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as social activities and interactions within conferences among individuals where individuals are able to use virtual accessories such as virtual backgrounds or avatars to represent themselves during the conference or meeting.
The dependent claims further support the interpretation of the abstract idea. The recitation of blockchain further supports using a blockchain as a database to register virtual accessories in a registry. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(1) is the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Step 2A(2), the claims that recite the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-emphasized limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the technology or technical elements that are interpreted to implement the abstract idea. However, these technical elements do not recite a particular improvement to said technology, are not effected by a particular machine, and the proposed elements are merely effecting a change in what are business improvements. This does not represent an improvement to computer functionality as the computer/processor is being used as a tool to implement typical computer functions as it normally would. The additional elements perform basic computer functionality in terms of receiving information regarding a virtual accessory and compares that information with information from a blockchain database to determine if the information is similar based on identifier data. This does not represent an improvement to computer functionality as the computer is merely being used as tool to operate as it normally would. According to MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is an example that courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, viewed as a whole, the additional elements in the claims are used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer 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) and Vanda Memo). 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 dependent claims attempt to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The recitation of the blockchain and NFT registry are recited as “extra solution activities” that do not improve the process or change the abstract idea. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(2) is the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a communications interface, and a processor of a video conference provider; a first client device and a second client device; and blockchain ledger.. While the additional elements limit the abstract idea to a specific field of technology, there is no improvement to the functions of the recited technology, nor is there an improvement to another technology or technical field. Thus, the additional elements merely recite instructions to execute the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements individually, the claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements in combination, the steps do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea more than the elements analyzed individually and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. Therefore, the result of Step 2B is the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The test concludes the claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 6:00-4:00.
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, Tariq Hafizcan be reached on (571)272-5350. 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.
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights