DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendments and response filed on 11/6/25. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 14-19, and 21-23 have been amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-23 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and response have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
In para. 1, p 10, of the arguments, the Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a “novel executable smart contract”.
The Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “a smart contract that stores a plurality of different crafting recipes associated with the specific non-fungible token collection”. The term “crafting recipes” is information (see: Sullivan, Anne, Mel Stanfill, and Anastasia Salter. "Crafting is So Hardcore: Masculinized Making in Gaming Representations of Labor." Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 2020. (Sullivan), p. 4, col. 2, para. 3, disclosing “[t]o use the materials, the player must find or buy patterns (sometimes called recipes) which enable the player to make a specific item described by the pattern. Each pattern or recipe has a particular set of materials required to create the item”). Therefore, “a smart contract that stores” information is merely a contract that stores information because “smart” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g.: blockchain), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Next, para. 2, p. 10 – para. 1, p 11, the Applicant states the steps performed/executed by the “smart contract” are an improvement in blockchain technology.
The Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “receiving … a crafting request”, “retrieving … a particular crafting recipe”, “transferring … ownership of each owned non-fungible token”, “minting … a new unique non-fungible token utilizing the particular crafting recipe”, “assigning … ownership of the new unique non-fungible token”, “burning … the set of owned non-fungible tokens” all performed by the smart contract of claim 1. The steps disclose the abstract idea of ownership transfer of an existing asset upon a receipt of a request to create a new asset from the existing asset; creating the new asset; assigning its ownership; and destruction of the old asset which are all part of the abstract idea equivalent to a performance of a agreement/contract. This is no more than “apply it” because the claim steps performed by a smart contract amount to mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, as previously stated, “smart” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g.: blockchain), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Randomization feature as disclosed in claim 15 is also part of the abstract idea because it describes asset creation from existing assets and randomization in selecting which existing assets to choose. It does not recite any additional elements.
Next, in para. 2, p. 11, the Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
As stated previously, the claims disclose the abstract idea of ownership transfer of an existing asset upon a receipt of a request to create a new asset from the existing asset; creating the new asset; assigning its ownership; and destruction of the old asset which are all part of the abstract idea equivalent to a performance of a contract. The additional element of “smart” and performance of the steps by the smart contract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because execution/performance of the steps by the “smart [contract]” amount to mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “smart” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g.: blockchain), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Next, in para. 3, p. 11, the Applicant argues that “NFT” cannot be characterized as a financial asset.
The examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 specifically recites ownership transfer of an asset (e.g.: “assigning, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, ownership of the new unique non-fungible token to the blockchain account of the user”).
Next, in para. 4, p. 11 – para. 3, p. 12, the Applicant argues that the claim limitations cannot be performed “in one’s head”.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner never made an argument that the claim limitations recite a “mental process”, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Instead, the Examiner argues that claim limitations recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims disclose ownership transfer of an existing asset upon a receipt of a request to create a new asset from the existing asset; creating the new asset; assigning its ownership; and destruction of the old asset. Any additional element recited in the claims are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) or merely generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g.: blockchain), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, in para. 4, p. 12 – para. 1, p.13, the Applicant argues that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter because of Ex parte Desjardins.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant does not provide a reason why the claims are eligible because of Desjardins decision. The 2 step test of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l | 573 U.S. 208 (2014) is the precedent, was applied by the rejection and deems the claims ineligible. The Examiner does not have authority to push aside precedent.
As such, the rejection is maintained and an updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided.
Examiner’s Notes
Prior art of record include US 20210365909 A1 (Shina) disclosing controlling trade of copyrighted digital work, US 20200005284 A1 (Vijayan) disclosing Implementing blockchain-based content engagement platforms utilizing media wallets, US 20200273048 A1 (Andon) disclosing provisioning cryptographic digital assets for blockchain-secured retail products.
combination of Shina, Vijayan, and Andon teach,
instantiating, by a set of one or more computer server devices of a blockchain network, a smart contract that stores a plurality of different crafting recipes associated with the specific non-fungible token collection;
executing, by the one or more computer server devices, the smart contract;
receiving, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a crafting request from a user device of a user, the crafting request comprising (i) an identifier for each owned non-fungible token of a set of owned non-fungible tokens that are owned by the user, and (ii) an account identifier that identifies a blockchain account of the user;
retrieving, by the smart contract executing on the one or more computer server devices, a particular crafting recipe of the plurality of crafting recipes that matches the set of owned non-fungible tokens;
minting, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a new unique non-fungible token utilizing the particular crafting recipe and based on the set of owned non-fungible tokens;
assigning, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, ownership of the new unique non-fungible token to the blockchain account of the user.
however, none of the references, individually or in combination, teach,
burning, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, the set of owned non-fungible tokens such that the set of owned non-fungible tokens are no longer transferrable on the blockchain network.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/6/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 and 5-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1-3 and 5-23). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
instantiating, by a set of one or more computer server devices of a blockchain network, a smart contract that stores a plurality of different crafting recipes associated with the specific non-fungible token collection;
executing, by the one or more computer server devices, the smart contract;
receiving, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a crafting request from a user device of a user, the crafting request comprising (i) an identifier for each owned non-fungible token of a set of owned non-fungible tokens that are owned by the user, and (ii) an account identifier that identifies a blockchain account of the user;
retrieving, by the smart contract executing on the one or more computer server devices, a particular crafting recipe of the plurality of crafting recipes that matches the set of owned non-fungible tokens;
, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, ownership of each owned non-fungible token of the set of owned non-fungible tokens from the blockchain account of the user and to the crafting smart contract;
minting, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a new unique non-fungible token utilizing the particular crafting recipe and based on the set of owned non-fungible tokens;
assigning, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, ownership of the new unique non-fungible token to the blockchain account of the user; and
burning, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, the set of owned non-fungible tokens such that the set of owned non-fungible tokens are no longer transferrable on the blockchain network.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“instantiating, by a set of one or more computer server devices of a blockchain network, a smart contract that stores” and “[the specific] non-fungible [token collection]. This is no more than “apply it” as “instantiating, by a set of one or more computer server devices of a blockchain network, [a] smart [contract]” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).. Furthermore, the “smart [contract] that stores” is also no more than “apply it” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). In addition, the “smart [contract]” is general linking as the “smart” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, “[the specific] non-fungible [token collection]” is general linking as the “non-fungible” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“executing, by the one or more computer server devices, [the] smart [contract]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “executing, by the one or more computer server devices, [the] smart [contract]” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“a user device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “user device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). As to “[each owned] non-fungible [token of the set of owned] non-fungible [tokens]” and “blockchain [account]”, this is general linking as they do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“[a new unique] non-fungible [token]”. This is general linking as it does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. As to “the blockchain network”, this is general linking as it does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
(Step 2B) 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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 6 recited “wherein the specific non-fungible token collection represent digital trading cards, wherein each digital trading card includes a digital asset and a set of attributes of the non-fungible token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“digital [trading cards]” and “digital [asset]”. This is general linking as “digital [trading cards]” and “digital [asset]” do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 13 recited “wherein the crafted cards include a type of non-fungible token that is configured for integration into a video game, wherein the video game is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game in response to verifying that a player of the video game owns a non-fungible token that is configured for integration into the video game”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“non-fungible [token] that is configured for integration into a video game”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “non-fungible [token] that is configured for integration into a video game” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“the video game is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game” This is no more than “apply it” as “the video game is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 14 recited “wherein minting the new unique non-fungible token includes instructing a minting smart contract to mint a new non-fungible token of the specific type”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“instructing [a minting] smart [contract to mint a new] non-fungible [token of the specific type]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “instructing [a minting] smart [contract to mint a new] non-fungible [token of the specific type]” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 17 recited “wherein the crafting request is initiated by a digital wallet of the user that is executed by the user device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a digital wallet of the user that is executed by the user device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “digital [wallet of the user] that is executed by the user device” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). The “digital [wallet]” is general linking as “digital” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 20 recited additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the blockchain network comprises a distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “blockchain network comprises a distributed ledger” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 21 recited additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the computer server devices host the blockchain network”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “computer server devices host the blockchain network” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a new asset from others and transferring the new asset to an owner’s account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 10-12, 15-16, 18-19 and 22-23 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Reference made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
US 20210365909 A1 (Shina) disclosing controlling trade of copyrighted digital work,
US 20200005284 A1 (Vijayan) disclosing Implementing blockchain-based content engagement platforms utilizing media wallets,
US 20200273048 A1 (Andon) disclosing provisioning cryptographic digital assets for blockchain-secured retail products.
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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 14, 2026