DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 November 24, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-15 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Independent claims 1 an 11 each recite a process of: (1) collecting and organizing information (blockchain data, digital resources, web content publication times); (2) analyzing and comparing that information (extracting image features, comparing mint time to publication time); and (3) retrieving and presenting the organized information in response to a query. At its core, this is a claim directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and presenting information based on defined relationships and attributes. This is a fundamental mental process and data management task. The claim specifies the types of data (blockchain/NFT data) and the analytical steps (image feature extraction, time comparison), but these details specify the particular information being manipulated, not a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues the claim is integrated into a practical application by providing “centralized indexing for identifying and surfacing digital resources…stored and secured on the blockchain.” The step of “obtaining blockchain data, comprising one or more function signatures” and “determining a particular portion…comprises token data” is data gathering and identification based on a data standard. The steps of “generating index data,” which includes “obtaining the digital resource,” “determining…image features…with a machine-learned model,” and “generating time difference data” constitute data analysis and record creation. The steps of “storing the index data,” “obtaining a search query,” “determining…search results,” and “providing a search results page” constitute data storage, query-responsive retrieval, and presentation of results. Individually and in combination, these steps describe the process of creating a searchable index which is an abstract concept using specific data sources and analytical tools. The claim describes the use of the abstract idea for the purpose of searching NFT-related information, but it does not recite a practical application that goes beyond the abstract idea itself. The claim covers all applications of this informational process for its intended purpose of indexing and searching. Therefore, the claim fails Prong Two of Step 2A. The additional elements are: (1) performing the abstract process on a “blockchain computing system” and data describing “non-fungible tokens”; (2) using a “machine-learned model” to determine image features; (3) generating “time difference data” between a mint time and a publication time; and (4) displaying results with “tags.” These elements, whether considered separately or as an ordered combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Hannun is noted. Each case turns on its specific claim language. The analysis here is governed by the controlling precedent of the Supreme Court in Alice and the Federal Circuit’s applications thereof. The claim here is directed to the type of information-based abstract idea identified as ineligible in cases such as Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results were abstract). The Examiner’s rejection is based on this established body of law.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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; and
providing 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 ”.
7. 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).
8. 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, 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).
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claim 9 recites “wherein the index data comprises transaction data associated with the non-fungible token” which further describe the abstract idea.
17. Claim 10 recites “wherein the index data comprises data descriptive of metadata associated with the non-fungible token” which further describe the abstract idea.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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 January 23, 2026