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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of April 3, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-15 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the Office Action has not met its burden of establishing prima facie unpatentability of claim 11. Applicant states that "[t]he burden to present such evidence extends to § 101 rejections" and cites the Memorandum from Charles Kim. The Examiner acknowledges the burden requirements set forth in the MPEP. In the prior Office Action, the Examiner provided a detailed analysis under the two-step Alice framework, identifying the specific claim limitations directed to an abstract idea and explaining why the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The Examiner's rejection was based on the claim language itself and the application's own specification. The burden set forth in the MPEP requires the Examiner to present a prima facie case. The prior Office Action satisfied this burden by identifying the abstract idea and explaining, with reference to the claim language, why the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Applicant's argument that the Examiner failed to meet this burden is therefore unpersuasive.
The prior Office Action identified the claims as directed to the abstract idea of generating an index. The claims recite steps of obtaining blockchain data, determining that a subset of the blockchain data comprises token data, generating index data, and storing the index data in an index database. These steps describe a process of collecting, organizing, and storing information, activities that fall within the category of abstract ideas. The specification confirms that the core of the claimed invention is indexing. At paragraph [0031], the specification states that the disclosure is "directed to systems and methods for indexing non fungible tokens." At paragraph [0035], the specification describes that "the systems and methods can improve the search user interface and user experience by identifying and indexing relevant data." The claims are directed to an indexing process. Applicant's remarks do not address why the specific steps of the claims are something other than an abstract idea of generating an index. Instead, Applicant focuses on the problem the invention solves and the benefits it provides. However, a solution to a problem does not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter if the solution itself is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims address a "technical problem caused by the blockchain ecosystem" and that the claimed features "provide centralized indexing for identifying and surfacing digital resources and other information stored and secured on the blockchain”. Examiner has considered these arguments. However, the specification identifies the problem as one of search engine functionality, specifically that search engines cannot properly identify and verify NFT search results. See Specification at [0002][0003]. The solution proposed is indexing blockchain data and web page data to generate an index database for NFT search. The steps of the claims, obtaining blockchain data, determining token data, generating index data, storing the index data, receiving a search query, determining search results, adjusting rankings, and providing a search results page, are all steps that could be performed using a general purpose computer. The claims do not recite any specific computer architecture, specialized hardware, or technical implementation that would take the claims outside the realm of an abstract idea. The use of a blockchain as a data source does not, by itself, transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The claims are directed to indexing data, and the fact that the data comes from a blockchain does not change the nature of the claimed invention. Similarly, the use of a machine learned model to determine image features does not transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter. The claim recites that a machine learned model is used, but does not recite any specific architecture, training method, or implementation details. The use of machine learning to process data is, at this level of generality, an abstract idea. Applicant cites paragraphs [0035], [0041], and [0070] through [0072] of the specification to support the argument that the claims provide technical benefits. Paragraph [0035] describes improving the search user interface and user experience. Paragraph [0041] describes generating index data for search, trend determination, and catalog generation. Paragraph [0070] repeats the same. Paragraph [0071] describes using machine learned models to generate labels and descriptors. Paragraph [0072] describes improved computational efficiency and reduced computational power. These paragraphs describe the benefits of the claimed invention. However, describing a benefit does not establish that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. The question under section 101 is whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, not whether the invention provides useful results. An invention can provide useful results and still be directed to an abstract idea.
The prior Office Action identified that the additional limitations of the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant's remarks do not identify any specific claim limitation that would constitute an inventive concept. The claims recite obtaining blockchain data, determining a subset comprises token data based on structure associated with standards, generating index data, obtaining a digital resource, determining image features with a machine learned model, generating feature data, determining a web content item is associated with the digital resource, obtaining a publication time, determining a mint time, generating time difference data, storing the index data, obtaining a search query, determining general search results, determining NFT search results, determining the NFT search results are associated with authenticated NFTs, adjusting rankings based on authentication and time difference, and providing a search results page with tags. Each of these steps describes a function that a computer could perform. The claims do not recite any specific computer architecture, specialized hardware, or technical implementation. The claims do not recite any specific machine learned model architecture, training method, or implementation details. The claims do not recite any specific ranking algorithm or formula. The combination of these steps does not create an inventive concept. The steps are simply an application of the abstract idea of generating an index to the context of NFTs. Adding data from a blockchain or using a machine learned model does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues that "the patentability of the dependent claims certainly does not hinge on the patentability of independent claims" and that "[s]ome or all of these claims may possess features that are independently patentable." The Examiner has considered the dependent claims. The dependent claims add limitations such as function signatures associated with NFT standards, feature descriptor terms, smart contracts, transaction data, metadata, reference data, publisher data, and digital resource types. These limitations are either inherent in the abstract idea of indexing NFTs or are additional data elements that do not amount to an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claim limitations recite specific computer architecture, specialized hardware, or technical implementation. None of them transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant's arguments regarding the section 101 rejections are not persuasive. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating an index. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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, 5-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating an index without significantly more.
Claim 11 is directed to the abstract idea of generating an index which is grouped under “organizing human activity… commercial or legal interactions” [commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or business relations) ] in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 11 recites “a … method, the method comprising:
“obtaining, by a … comprising one or more …, … data from a …, wherein the … data comprises … associated with a …;
determining, by the …, a subset of the … data comprises token data based on the subset having a structure associated with one or more standards, wherein the token data is descriptive of a … associated with the …;
generating, by the …, index data based on the token data, wherein the index data comprises information obtained from the … data, and wherein the index data is associated with the , wherein generating the index data comprises:
obtaining the … resource associated with the non-fungible token;
determining one or more … features based on processing the … resource with a machine-learned model;
generating feature data descriptive of the one or more … features;
determining a … content item is associated with the …:
obtaining a publication time associated with the … content item;
determining a mint time associated with the non-fungible token based on the blockchain data;
generating time difference data based on the mint time and the publication time, wherein the index data comprises the feature data, the publication time, the mint time, and the time difference data; and
storing, by the …, the index data in an index …
obtaining a search query;
determining one or more general search results based on the search query;
determining one or more non-fungible token search results based on the search query and the index data including the feature data; determining the one or more non-fungible token search results are associated with one or more authenticated non-fungible tokens on a blockchain based on the index data;
adjusting one or more rankings of the one or more non-fungible token search results based on determining the one or more non-fungible token search results are associated with the one or more authenticated non-fungible tokens and based on the time difference of the mint time and the publication time, wherein the one or more general search results comprises the …, and wherein the one or more non-fungible token search results comprises the non-fungible token; and
providing, based on the one or more rankings, a search results page for display that comprises the one or more general search results and the one or more non-fungible token search results, wherein the search results page comprises information from the index data, and wherein the one or more non-fungible token search results are provided for display with one or more tags indicating the non-fungible token search results are associated with token data ”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of generating an index and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of generating an index and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions such as sales activities or business relations). Accordingly, claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., computing system comprising one or more processors, blockchain computing system, digital resource, web, web content item, and index database which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 11 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim(s) does/do 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 to no more than linking an abstract idea to technical components. Further, as the additional elements of claim 11 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of generating an index and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions such as sales activities or business relations). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “a computing system, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system, blockchain computing system, blockchain data comprises one or more function signatures, particular portion of the blockchain data, token data, digital resource, and index database”. The additional elements of claims 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining the particular portion of the blockchain data comprises the token data comprises: determining a particular portion of the blockchain data comprises token data based on the one or more function signatures, wherein the one or more function signatures are associated with a non-fungible token standard” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein generating the feature data descriptive of the one or more features comprises: determining one or more feature descriptor terms associated with the one or more features; and wherein the feature data is descriptive of the one or more feature descriptor terms” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request for the digital resource from a …; and providing the token data to the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes a “user computer system” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining the particular portion of the blockchain data comprises the token data comprises: determining the particular portion comprises a smart contract associated with a digital media item” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the digital media item is a payload for the smart contract, and wherein the digital media item is the digital resource” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the index data comprises transaction data associated with the non-fungible token” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the index data comprises data descriptive of metadata associated with the non-fungible token” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the structure comprises a format for code in the blockchain data associated with a standard format for non-fungible token code” which further define the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “wherein …, the index data based on the … comprises: …, reference data associated with the digital resource based on the …; …, a publisher of the non-fungible token based on the …; and wherein the index data comprises data descriptive of the reference data, the publisher, and a …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “generating, by the computing system, token data, determining, by the computing system, digital resource, determining, by the computing system, particular blockchain associated with the blockchain data” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the index data …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “a digital resource type associated with the digital resource, wherein the digital resource type is an augmented-reality rendering asset type, and wherein the digital resource is an augmented-reality rendering asset” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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 on 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 23, 2026
