DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response and IDS filed on 11/18/25. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-19 and 22-24 were amended. Claims 1-3, 5-19 and 22-24 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of claim amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: instantiating, by a set of one or more computer server devices of a blockchain network, a smart contract that stores […]”) that necessitates a reconsideration of the claims.
As such an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/18/25. 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, 5-19 and 22-24 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, 5-19 and 22-24). 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, wherein a plurality of pre-minted non-fungible tokens from the specific non-fungible token collection are pre-minted prior to a release of the non-fungible token collection;
executing, by the set of one or more computer server devices, the smart contract, wherein the executing comprises:
receiving, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a blockchain crafting function call from a user device of a user, the blockchain crafting function call 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 use
retrieving, by the smart contract executing on the set of 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;
transferring, 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 smart contract;
randomly selecting, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a pre-minted non-fungible token of the specified type from the plurality of pre-minted non-fungible tokens utilizing the particular crafting recipe and based on the set of owned non-fungible tokens;
assigning, by the smart contract, ownership of the pre-minted non-fungible token to the blockchain account of the user on the blockchain;
burning, by the smart contract, the set of owned non-fungible tokens such that the set of owned non-fungible tokens are no longer transferrable on the blockchain.
(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”. 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 that stores” 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 are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is general linking as the “blockchain network” and “smart contract” do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“non-fungible [token collection]” and “non-fungible [tokens]”. This 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, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“executing, by the set of one or more computer server devices, the smart contract, wherein the executing comprises”. This is no more than “apply it” as “executing, by the set of 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 are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“receiving, by the smart contract executing on the set of one or more computer server devices, a blockchain crafting function call from a user device of a user, the blockchain crafting function call”. This is no more than “apply it” as “the blockchain crafting function call” and its receival 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) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“blockchain [account]”. This is general linking as the “blockchain” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
(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 recites “wherein the specific non-fungible token collection comprises represents digital trading cards, wherein each digital trading card includes a digital asset and a set of attributes of its corresponding non-fungible token” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
“digital [trading cards]” and “digital [asset]”. This is general linking as the “digital” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also 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 9 recites “wherein the build cards are non-fungible tokens that are initially awarded to a respective user account in response to unboxing a respective digital pack corresponding to the non-fungible token collection” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
“digital [pack”. This is general linking as the “digital” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also 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 recites “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 an non-fungible token that is configured for integration into the video game” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
“the video game is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game”. This is merely “apply it” as “the video game is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game” is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as the “video game” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also 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 recites “wherein the blockchain crafting function is further configured to mint a crafted non-fungible token if no pre-minted non-fungible token is available, wherein minting the crafted non-fungible token includes instructing a minting smart contract to mint a new non-fungible token of the specified type” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
“instructing a minting smart contract”. This is merely “apply it” as “instructing a minting 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 are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also 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 recites additional elements.
“the blockchain crafting function call is received from the digital wallet application of the user that is executed by the user device”. This is merely “apply it” as “the blockchain crafting function call is received from the digital wallet application 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 are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also 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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 16, 18-19 and 22-24 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
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 March 24, 2026