DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 07/30/2025.
Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-18, 21 and 22 are pending.
Claims 1-18, 21 and 22 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues “independent claims 1 and 10 of the present application recite none of those enumerated activities, and are in fact essentially unrelated to interactions between people, whether those interactions are economic, legal, or behavioral.” Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s first limitation recites “receive an assembly message for a plurality of users to assemble at a same physical location or a same virtual location, the plurality of users including a first user and a second user”. This limitation shows related and direct behavioral interactions, which are also supported by Applicant’s disclosure that explains “Existing NFT minting and distribution platforms enable collectors to buy, sell, or trade NFTs at will, but are indifferent to the location of collectors, their social interactions, or the activities that they may be engaged in. As a result, conventional processes for minting and distributing NFTs to collectors fail to incentivize those NFT collectors to meet, whether in real life or virtually, in order to share their experiences as collectors or to gain additional benefits through socialization or cooperative endeavor. ” It appears this Application is geared at fixing that direct commercial and behavioral interaction. It is therefore unclear, how Applicant can state “ independent claims 1 and 10 of the present application recite none of those enumerated activities, and are in fact essentially unrelated to interactions between people, whether those interactions are economic, legal, or behavioral.”
Applicant argues “Here, the currently amended independent claims recite an approach that advances the state-of-the-art by enabling the use of wrapped metadata accompanying an NFT to serve as a substitute for a blockchain or other secure transaction ledger to provide a more readily accessible reference for NFT transactions.” The limitations Applicant points to as performing this “substitute for a blockchain or other secure transaction ledger to provide a more readily accessible reference for NFT transactions”, is “a first variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the first user and wrapped with first metadata including a minting and ownership history of the first variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the first user as a first genesis NFT to which the first variant NFT is related as a variant, and a second variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the second user and wrapped with second metadata including a minting and ownership history of the second variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the second user as a second genesis NFT to which the second variant NFT is related as a variant.”
These limitations describe that variants of an original content have information/metadata that reference the original. It is unclear how this provides “an approach that advances the state-of-the-art by enabling the use of wrapped metadata accompanying an NFT to serve as a substitute for a blockchain or other secure transaction ledger to provide a more readily accessible reference for NFT transactions”. The rejection is maintained.
103
Kapur teaches a first variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the first user and wrapped with first metadata including a minting and ownership history of the first variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the first user as a first genesis NFT to which the first variant NFT is related as a variant, and a second variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the second user and wrapped with second metadata including a minting and ownership history of the second variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the second user as a second genesis NFT to which the second variant NFT is related as a variant, (¶ 200, 201, 219, 281, 285, 323, 325)
Kapur- Evolution in compliance with some embodiments may also be used to spawn additional content, for example, one NFT directly creating one or more secondary NFTs… As discussed above, minted NFTs can be signed by content creators and administrators of the NFT blockchain. In addition, users can verify the authenticity of particular NFTs without the assistance of entities that minted the NFT by verifying that the transaction records involving the NFT… Initial NFTs minted outside the NFT platform can also be developed through later minted NFTs, with the initial NFTs being used to further identify and interact with the user based upon their ownership of both NFTs… In accordance with many embodiments of the invention, the generalized data 511 may be used to access corresponding rich media through the NFT 510. The NFT 510 may additionally have associated metadata 516… a first NFT may represent a deed to a first building, and a second NFT a deed to a second building. Moreover, the deed represented by the first NFT may indicate that a first party owns the first property. The deed represented by the second NFT may indicate that a second party owns the second property. A third NFT may represent one or more valuations of the first building. The third NFT may in turn be associated with a fourth NFT that may represent credentials of a party performing such a valuation. A fifth NFT may represent one or more valuations of the second building. A sixth may represent the credentials of one of the parties performing a valuation… In many embodiments, NFT evolution platforms can generate a single NFT for one user, a shared NFT for several users, and/or several revised NFTs for several users,.
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 1-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1 and 19 are directed to an article of manufacture, and claim 10 is directed to a method.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving … message… confirming … user are present … verify… user is an owner… generate a smart contract…. Mint… NFT… and distribute…NFT….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas and distribution, specifically, commercial interactions, for example, a marketing ploy to gather registered consumers, verify their attendance and give rewards for attendance. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does currently recite an additional elements but the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The use of a distributed ledger or blockchain does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as the blockchain recites functions of a generic computer component, such as storing the record.
“minting … NFT…” is the additional element, as the distributed reward of the abstract idea. According to the disclosure(¶ 9, 15, 18, 34, 49-53), “The present application discloses systems and methods for performing location-based NFT creation (hereinafter “minting”)… By contrast, the present location-based NFT minting and distribution solution advantageously enables the rewarding of collectors for their presence at particular physical locations or virtual locations and their participation in specific events… System 110 may be configured to create or “mint” NFTs, to mint and warehouse NFTs, or to distribute or warehouse NFTs minted by others.” The disclosure, while it recites minting NFTs, does not actually provide an algorithm for how this is done, simply that NFTs are minted as rewards. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the minted NFTs are the commercial rewards for attendance. As drafted, they can be substituted for any other commercial reward for attendance and do not break the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving … message… confirming … user are present … verify… user is an owner… generate a smart contract… and distribute…NFT….” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a commercial interaction as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 21 and 22 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
For example dependent claims 2 and 11 recite insignificant extra solution activity such as sending information. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Claims 3-9, and 12-18 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 21 and 22 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler et al. (US 20220343328) (“Fowler”), and further in view of Kapur et al. (US 20230070586) (“Kapur”).
Regarding claims 1, and 10, Fowler discloses a hardware processor and a system memory storing a software code, the method comprising: receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, an assembly message for a plurality of users to assemble at a same physical location or a same virtual location, the plurality of users including a first user and a second user (¶ 137-143, 148, 156, 171);
confirming, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, that the first user and the second user are present at the same physical location or the same virtual location(¶ 148, 162, 170-173, 192, 201);
verifying, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, that each of the first user and the second user is an owner of a respective non-fungible token (NFT) related to the assembly message (¶ 124, 125, 182);
minting, by the software code executed by the hardware processor based on the smart contract (¶ 20, 121, 122, 135, 149, 166, 177, 188, 197); and
distributing, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, one of the first variant NFT or the second variant NFT to the first user and the other one of the first variant NFT or the second variant NFT to the second user (¶ 121, 149, 165, 167, 172).
Fowler does not disclose generating, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, a smart contract governing minting of a plurality of variant NFTs; a first variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the first user and wrapped with first metadata including a minting and ownership history of the first variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the first user as a first genesis NFT to which the first variant NFT is related as a variant, and a second variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the second user and wrapped with second metadata including a minting and ownership history of the second variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the second user as a second genesis NFT to which the second variant NFT is related as a variant.
Kapur teaches generating, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, a smart contract governing minting of a plurality of variant NFTs(¶ 8, 11, 192, 193, 215-220, 249, 270, 283-285, 326, 336, 369;claim 1);
a first variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the first user and wrapped with first metadata including a minting and ownership history of the first variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the first user as a first genesis NFT to which the first variant NFT is related as a variant, and a second variant NFT based on the respective NFT owned by the second user and wrapped with second metadata including a minting and ownership history of the second variant NFT identifying the respective NFT owned by the second user as a second genesis NFT to which the second variant NFT is related as a variant, (Figure 20; ¶ 44, 61, 62, 85, 100, 101, 112, 125, 177-79, 185, 200-208, 219-20, 249, 255-258, 263, 281-288, 304-306, 315, 321-333, 342, 343, 375, 395-406, 411-413, 425, 470, 483, 486, 487, 493).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fowler and Kapur in order to provide content producers with full marketplace utilizing NFTs (Kapur; ¶ 2-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kapur teaches wherein distributing distributes the second variant NFT to the first user and the first variant NFT to the second user (¶ 7, 37-39, 64, 65, 178, 200, 258-260, 280-282, 325, 342, 409).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kapur teaches wherein the same virtual location comprises a virtual venue of an interactive video environment (¶ 205, 261, 284, 294-296, 323, 332, 333, 342, 343, 387).
Regarding claims 4, and 13, Kapur teaches wherein the interactive video environment provides at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) experience to the first user and the second user (¶ 205, 346, 361-364, 487).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Fowler discloses wherein the same physical location comprises a physical location within one of a theme park, resort property, hotel, or cruise ship (¶ 80, 92, 114, 201).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kapur teaches wherein the respective one of the first variant NFT or the second variant NFT distributed to each of the first user and the second user entitles each of the first user and the second user to a respective VR, AR, or MR experience (¶ 205, 346, 487, 495).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Fowler discloses wherein the physical location comprises an attraction within the theme park, and wherein the respective one of the first variant NFT or the second variant NFT distributed to each of the first user and the second user entitles each of the first user and the second user to the respective VR, AR, or MR experience at the attraction (¶ 80, 83, 92, 101, 114, 201).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kapur teaches wherein the VR, AR, or MR experience for the first user is different from the VR, AR, or MR experience for the second user (¶ 205, 346, 361-364, 495).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Fowler discloses wherein the assembly message is received from one of the first user, the second user, a creator of at least one of the respective NFTs owned by the first user and the second user, or a distributor of at least one of the respective NFTs owned by the first user and the second user (¶ 137-143, 148, 156, 171).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Kapur teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: revoke the respective NFT owned by the first user and the respective NFT owned by the second user (¶ 206, 207, 218, 423).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khalfan et al., (US 20230410066)/ (App 18/133,951) teaches same family and subject matter.
Jakobsson et al. (US 20230009304) teaches NFTs and Virtual environments.
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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights