DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement
The amendment/request for reconsideration dated 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11 and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-18 and 20-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. The Applicant’s claims have been previously addressed in the office action dated 09/10/2025. Now, the Applicant has amended at least independent claims 1, 11 and 22, particularly claim 1 to recite, “a system”, “including
[1] processing hardware and
[2] a system memory…”
“…wherein the processing hardware executes the software code, the computing platform performs the following actions… without human intervention:
receiving entitlement data as an input, the entitlement data including information identifying a user and a right of the user…, the entitlement data further including metadata identifying (i) a default valuation…, and (ii) at least one valuation multiplier applicable under a corresponding redemption condition;
applying the at least one valuation multiplier to the default valuation to determine on eo more redemption-dependent valuations;
generating a smart contract governing terms of use…, the smart contract identifying at least one royalty percentage payable to a provider upon one or more redemption, sale or trade of the multi-platform portable NFT credit; …
minting…, at least one of the key value pairs including a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or a universally unique identifier (UUID);
…causing generation of a record assignment, or a block chain remote from the system, the blockchain accessible by the system and the plurality of distinct providers via a communication network and implemented as a secure digital transaction database utilizing a proof of stake consensus protocol;
Upon redemption…,
using the smart contract, a royalty…based on at least one of (i) a redemption value associated with the redemption-dependent valuation of the multi-platform portable NFT credit as defined by the wrapped metadata, or (ii) a sale price or trade value identified in transaction data received from the one or the plurality of distinct providers; …”
It is submitted that the Applicant’s amendments sets forth computer functions that perform an existing process.
According to the specification, “Figure 2 shows user system 240 of user 208, configured to mediate collection, expenditure, and transfer of ownership of multi-platform portable NFT credit 222,…” which “generally, user system 240 may be any suitable mobile or stationary computing device or system that implements data processing capabilities sufficient to provide GUI 254, support connections to communication network 202, and implement the functionality ascribed to user system 240.... For example, in other implementations, user system 240 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, or smart TV, for example.”
Use of a computer (e.g., herein as processing hardware and system memory) or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive- herein as ‘receiving entitlement data, store-herein as ‘storing a software code’, or transmit data-herein as ‘distributing…”) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation-e.g., assigning an amount of credit) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.]
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. [See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)]
In the instant application, it was determined that Claims 1, 11 and 22 are directed to and/or describes the abstract idea of "determining and/or assigning an amount of credit (i.e., multi-platform portable credit) to a user that is redeemable by the user." Which is grouped as certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices) in prong one of Step 2A (See 2019 revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). It was also found that the claims describe steps of, "receiving entitlement data identifying a user and a right of the user to receive a multi-platform portable non-fungible (NFT) credit; determining, using the entitlement data, one or more valuations of the multi- platform portable NFT credit; generating a smart contract governing terms of use minting the multiplatform portable NFT credit identifying the smart contract allowing the multi- platform portable NFT credit to have flexible valuation executing an assignment of the multi-platform portable NFT credit to the user, the multi-platform portable NFT credit being redeemable by the user from any of a plurality of distinct providers; and causing generation of a record of the assignment ...a record of the assignment; and upon redemption of the multi-platform portable NFT credit, causing generation of a record of the redemption and a cancellation of the multi-platform portable NFT credit ..." are directed to the abstract idea of determining and/or assigning an amount of credit. It is maintained that the additional elements of performing these functions using processing hardware and a system memory storing software code are being used in their ordinary capacity.
In regards to the purported “…wrapped metadata with key value pairs, use of URIs/UUIDs to represent metadata values, and explicit valuation multipliers…”. It is understood that “metadata” is well understood in the art as data which describes other data. “Wrapped metadata” or metadata encoding and transmission standard) was previously developed to archive metadata (e.g., the use of a timestamp on a set of metadata) and has been used with at least XML for some time now1. Thus, the function(s) being provided by these limitations are well understood routine and conventional within the art.
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, 4-11, 14-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to a system and claim 11 is directed to a method
At least claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s),
”…receiving entitlement data …, the entitlement data including information identifying a user and a right of the user to receive a multi-platform portable non-fungible token (NFT) credit, the entitlement data further including metadata identifying (i) a default valuation of the multi-platform portable NFT credit, and (ii) at least one valuation multiplier …;
applying the at least one valuation multiplier …;
generating a smart contract governing terms of use of the multi-platform portable NFT credit, the smart contract identifying at least one royalty percentage payable to a provider upon one or more of redemption, sale, or trade of the multi-platform portable NFT credit;
minting the multi-platform portable NFT credit, wherein …includes wrapped metadata having key value pairs allowing the multi-platform portable NFT credit to have a valuation depending on at least one of:
(i) from which of a plurality of distinct providers the multi-platform portable NFT credit is redeemed, or
(ii) how the multi-platform portable NFT credit is redeemed, at least one of the key value pairs including a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or a universally unique identifier (UUID);
executing an assignment of the multi-platform portable NFT credit to the user, the multi-platform portable NFT credit being redeemable by the user from any of the plurality of distinct providers;
causing generation of a record of the assignment, on a blockchain remote from the system, the blockchain accessible by the system and the plurality of distinct providers via a communication network and implemented as a secure digital transaction database utilizing a proof-of-stake consensus protocol; upon redemption of the multi-platform portable NFT credit,
determining, using the smart contract, a royalty payable to one of the plurality of distinct providers based on at least one of (i) a redemption value associated with the redemption-dependent valuation of the multi-platform portable NFT credit as defined by the wrapped metadata, or (ii) a sale price or trade value identified in transaction data received from the one of the plurality of distinct providers; distributing, using the smart contract, the royalty to the one of the plurality of distinct providers; and causing generation of a record of the redemption and a cancellation of the multi- platform portable NFT credit on the blockchain.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as processing hardware, system memory and database represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of automation of determining, acquiring and using a certain type of credit (i.e., multi-platform NFT credit using rules to authorize a financial transaction.) see MPEP 2106.05(f),
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the
claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Again, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements (i.e., processing hardware and system memory) are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the abstract concept of determining, acquiring and using a certain type of credit, to a technical field. Thus the claims do not improve the computer itself or improve a technical field, but uses the combination of elements, including well-understood blockchain to determine, acquire and use a certain type of credit (i.e., NFT credit). Thus the combination of elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, and thus does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself [MPEP 2106.05].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
[1] Groman, M., “Comprehensive Metadata Management”, published in TDAN.com (July 2003).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692