Detailed Action
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are pending and are 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 11 are currently amended.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the amended claims no longer recite a mental process or method of organizing human activity because they require camera telemetry in polar and azimuthal angels and use that telemetry to mint an NFT depicting an altered CG representation. The argument is not persuasive because the amendments merely add particular information used to determine when and how the NFT is generated, while the underlying focus remains memorializing a real world internation through generation of a digital asset. The rejection therefore does not depend on every step being performable in the human mind, and the amended limitations do not remove the claims from the identified judicial exception.
Applicant argues that using camera telemetry to mint the NFT is a specific technological application analogous to Thales Visionix and is not merely data gathering. The argument is not persuasive the claims do not improve camera operation, orientation measurement, CG rendering, blockchain operation, or NFT minting; rather, the telemetry is used as an input to determine the resulting digital asset. Unlike Thales, the claims do not recite a new sensor arrangement or improved technique for determining orientation, and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Application argues that the ordered combination in unconventional because it requires receiving sensor and camera telemetry and minting an NFT depicting an altered CG representation using the telemetry. The argument is not persuasive because these limitations implement the abstract concept identified under Step 2A, while the processor, memory, sensors, camera, and network components perform their ordinary functions. The claim does not recite a nonconventional architecture comparable to BASCOM, and the additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more.
.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that Todasco, Spivack, and Andon fail teach the amended camera-telemetry and telemetry-based NFT limitations. The rejections is maintained with Pedrosa relied upon for receiving camera video and telemetry including location and orientation, reporting the camera’s direction/angle of view, and using the camera’s field of view in processing. The references need not individually teach the entire claim because Todaasco supplies sensor/context-based NFT generation, Spivack supplies location-associated AR object interaction, and Pedrosa supplies the amended camera-telemetry features.
Applicant further argues that none of the references discloses polar and azimuthal angles. Pedrosa expressly teaches camera orientation, direction/angle of view, radial/angular direction information, and telemetry including compass and roll/pitch/yaw measurements, making use of polar/azimuthal coordinates a predictable representation of known spatial orientation. Accordingly, the amendment does not require a different sensing principle, but merely specifies the angular coordinate format used to express known orientation information.
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 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, and 9-10:
Step 1
Claims 1-6, and 9-10 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite commercial activity. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A system comprising:
a hardware processor; and a system memory storing a software code; the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to:
receive, from a user device, a request to mint a new non-fungible token (NFT) based on a presence of a user of the user device by an object in a venue;
receive sensor data identifying a location of the user device by the object in the venue;
obtain camera data from the venue, the camera data depicting the object in a field of view of the user device; and including camera telemetry data comprising a spatial orientation, in terms of polar and azimuthal angles, of a camera of the venue;
mint the new NFT, based on the sensor data identifying the location of the user device by the object and the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device, wherein the new NFT depicts a portion of an altered computer generated (CG) representation of the object and is minted using the camera telemetry data.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 1 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “non-fungible” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-6 and 9-10 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of ownership recordkeeping. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The system of claim 1, wherein hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to:
record ownership of the new NFT by the user on a secure transaction ledger; and
transfer the new NFT to a digital wallet of the user.
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The system of claim 1, wherein the venue comprises a virtual venue of an interactive video environment.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The system of claim 3, wherein the interactive video environment provides at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) experience to the user.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation and ownership. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The system of claim 1, wherein the portion of the altered CG representation of the object is determined based on one or more of a loyalty status of the user or ownership by the user of one or more other NFTs.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The system of claim 1, wherein the new NFT further depicts the user as engaged in one of observing the object or interacting with the object.
Claim 9 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The system of claim 1, wherein the new NFT depicts the object from a perspective of the user.
Claim 10 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The system of claim 1, wherein the user is a first user, and wherein before minting the new NFT, the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to:
receive, from a second user device of a second user, affinity data associating the second user with the first user;
receive another sensor data identifying a location of the second user device; and
obtain another camera data from the venue, the another camera data depicting at least one of the second user or a field of view of the second user relative to the venue;
wherein minting the new NFT uses the sensor data, the another sensor data, the camera data, and the another camera data to produce the new NFT as a group NFT based on collaborative engagement by the first user and the second user with the object.
Claim 11-16, and 19-20:
Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 11 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite commercial activity. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for use by a system including a hardware processor and a system memory storing a software code, the method comprising:
receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor from a user device, a request to mint a new non- fungible token (NFT) based on a presence of a user of the user device by an object in a venue;
receiving by the software code executed by the hardware processor, sensor data identifying a location of the user device by the object in the venue;
obtaining camera data from the venue, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, the camera data depicting the object in a field of view of the user device and including camera telemetry data comprising a spatial orientation, in terms of polar and azimuthal angles, of a camera of the venue; and
minting the new NFT, by the software code executed by the hardware processor and based on the sensor data identifying the location of the user device by the object and the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device, wherein the new NFT depicts a portion of an altered computer generated (CG) representation of the object and is minted using the camera telemetry data.
Step 2A Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Here, the additional elements of a user device, an NFT, and a camera, individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The user device may be a generic and conventional user device (See spec pg. 7). The NFT may be a generic and conventional NFT (See spec pg. 4). The camera may be a generic and conventional camera (See spec. pg. 8).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 11, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 12-16 and 19-20 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token ownership and recordkeeping. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The method of claim 11, further comprising:
recording, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, ownership of the new NFT by the user on a secure transaction ledger; and
transferring, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, the new NFT to a digital wallet of the user.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The method of claim 11, wherein the venue comprises a virtual venue of an interactive video environment.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The method of claim 13, wherein the interactive video environment provides at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) experience to the user.
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token ownership and generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The method of claim 11, wherein the portion of the altered CG representation of the object is determined based on one or more of a loyalty status of the user or ownership by the user of one or more other NFTs.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The method of claim 11, wherein the new NFT further depicts the user as engaged in one of observing the object or interacting with the object.
Claim 19 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The method of claim 11, wherein the new NFT depicts the object from a perspective of the user.
Claim 20 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites the abstract idea of token generation based upon object related data. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NF” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The method of claim 11, wherein the user is a first user, and wherein before the new NFT is minted the method further comprises:
receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor from a second user device, affinity data associating the second user with the first user;
receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, another sensor data identifying a location of the second user device; and
obtaining, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, another camera data from the venue, the another camera data depicting at least one of the second user or a field of view of the second user relative to the venue;
wherein minting the new NFT uses the sensor data, the another sensor data, the camera data, and the another camera data to produce the new NFT as a group NFT based on collaborative engagement by the first user and the second user with the object.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todasco et al. (US2023/0186281) (hereinafter “Todasco”) in view of Spivack et al. (US20190108578A1) (hereinafter “Spivack”) and Andon et al. (US10505726B1) (hereinafter “Andon”) in further view of Pedrosa et al. (US20190333260A1) (hereinafter “Pedrosa”)
As per Claim 1 and 11, Todasco teaches:
A system comprising: a hardware processor; and a system memory storing a software code; the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to: (“In various embodiments, the device 102 can comprise a processor 114 (e.g., computer processing unit, microprocessor) and a computer-readable memory 110 that is operably and/or operatively and/or communicatively connected/coupled to the processor 114. The memory 110 can store computer-executable instructions which, upon execution by the processor 114, can cause the processor 114 and/or other components of the device 102 (e.g., sensing component 116, sensors 117, context component 118, event component 120, access component 122, sensor(s) 124) to perform one or more acts. In various embodiments, the memory 110 can store computer-executable components (e.g., sensing component 116, sensors 117, context component 118, event component 120, access component 122, sensor(s) 124), and the processor 114 can execute the computer-executable components.” (Para. 0066); “In an embodiment, a system, comprises: a non-transitory memory comprising instructions; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving sensor data from one or more sensing devices; determining, based in part on the received sensor data, a characteristic of a first user associated with a first digital wallet, or a characteristic of a second user associated with a second digital wallet; based on the sensor data and the characteristic of the first or second users, determining if one or more factors have been satisfied, wherein the one or more factors includes a location of the first user, a location of the second user, or one or more characteristics of the first or second users; and creating a non-fungible token (NFT) as a function of the one or more factors, wherein the NFT provides access to the second digital wallet by the first user or access to the first digital wallet by the second user.” (Para. 0043); “With reference again to FIG. 8 , the example environment 800 for implementing various embodiments of the aspects described herein includes a computer 802, the computer 802 including a processing unit 804, a system memory 806 and a system bus 808. The system bus 808 couples system components including, but not limited to, the system memory 806 to the processing unit 804. The processing unit 804 can be any of various commercially available processors. Dual microprocessors and other multi-processor architectures can also be employed as the processing unit 804.” (Para. 0106)
receive, from a user device, a request to mint a new non-fungible token (NFT) (“minting a non-fungible token (NFT) and providing it in the first digital wallet and the second digital wallet.” (Para. 0038); “creating a non-fungible token (NFT) as a function of the one or more factors” (Para. 0043); “utilizing a smart contract to create a non-fungible token (NFT) . . . as a function of the one or more factors being satisfied.” (Para. 0048).
based on a presence of a user of the user device . . .; (“FIG. 4 illustrates a high-level flow diagram of an example, non-limiting computer-implemented method 400 that can facilitate providing or restricting access to digital assets associated with device 102. The device 102 can be electronically integrated, via any suitable wired and/or wireless electronic connection, with blockchain 104. Employment of automated access or restriction to assets associated with the digital wallet 101 or digital wallet(s) 103 provides a robust authentication technique that facilitates increased confidence as to authenticity of a transaction as compared to employing conventional authentication techniques, and facilitates ease of such transactions as a result of the automating access to or restricting access to digital assets associated with digital wallet 101 or digital wallet(s) 103. At 410, a request is detected from a first user to access one or more digital assets of a first digital wallet 103 of a second user. The device 102 can receive such request, using sensing component 116 and sensors 117, as a set of sensed information (e.g., user identity, user proximity, user affinity to an entity, user location, user activity, user preferences, user credentials, user solvency, user records, user history . . . ). In an example, the first user can initiate a request using a mobile telephone (e.g., text, application, etc.), or the request can be made in the background in an automated fashion via device 102. Sensing component 116 can utilize the sensor(s) 117 to collect the information (e.g., DNA matching, ear recognition, face recognition, gait recognition, iris recognition, retina recognition, finger geometry recognition, hand geometry recognition, odor recognition, typing recognition, vein recognition, voice recognition, signature stroke recognition, proximity, activity, declarations, affinity, . . . ). The sensor(s) 117 can reside within the device 102 or outside the device 102, and can communicate with other components in a wired or wireless fashion, depending on integration for respective embodiments. The sensor(s) 117 can comprise any suitable type of sensors (e.g., microphone, chemical sensors, pressure sensors, DNA sensors, cameras, scanners, analog sensors, digital sensors, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, accelerometers, activity sensors, gaze detection sensors, etc.) for collecting respective information regarding individuals, events, venues, environment.” (Para. 0084); “In an aspect, the detecting the request from the first user is based on detecting a second device of the first user within a threshold distance of a first device that contains the first digital wallet, wherein the second device contains a second digital wallet.” (Para. 0033)
receive sensor data identifying a location of the user device by . . .; (“In yet another embodiment, the device 102 can receive sensed extrinsic data from one or more sensors 117, and determine context, utilizing an artificial intelligence component 202 or context component 118, of one or more individuals. A determination can be made, (e.g., utilizing the artificial intelligence component 202), if one or more factors have been satisfied based on the extrinsic data and the one or more individuals' context. A smart contract can be utilized to create a non-fungible token (NFT) that provides access to the one or more individuals to a set of assets of digital wallet 101 or 103 as a function of the one or more factors being satisfied.” (Para. 0079); “In another aspect, the operations further comprising receiving sensor data via external sensing devices, and wherein determining information corresponding to the one or more factors is based on the received sensor data.” (Para. 0036); “FIG. 5 illustrates a high-level flow diagram of an example, non-limiting computer-implemented method 500 that can facilitate providing or restricting access to digital assets associated with digital wallet 101. At 510, a request is detected from a first user to access one or more digital assets of a first digital wallet (e.g., digital wallet 101) of a second user, wherein the detecting the request from the first user is based on detecting a second device of the first user within a threshold distance of a first device (e.g., device 102) that contains the first digital wallet (e.g., digital wallet 101), wherein the second device contains a second digital wallet (e.g., digital wallet 103). Thus for example, two users can have respective devices (e.g., mobile phone) that include or are associated with respective digital wallets, 101, 103. The respective devices, e.g., via sensors 117 (GPS, proximity, wireless triangulation, near-field communication, etc.) can determine that each device is within a threshold proximity (e.g., within a few feet, in the same room, at a same venue . . . ). At 512, a determination is made regarding whether to provide access to the one or more digital assets to the first user based on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors includes a location of the first user, a location of the second user, or one or more characteristics of the first user. At 514, if the one or more factors are satisfied, at 516 access is provided to at least one of the wallets (e.g., digital wallet 101 or 103). If the one or more factors are not satisfied, the process proceeds to 518 where access to at least one of the wallets (e.g., digital wallet 101 or 103) is restricted. The subject methodology facilitates respective devices of users to communicate in the background and establish levels of trust, e.g., based on proximity of the devices which indicates proximity of the users, and upon confirming other factors are satisfied or not such as characteristics of one of the users, and potentially a set of other factors (e.g., intent, type of request, solvency, identity, time of day, smart contracts, pre-set criteria, financial obligations, prior agreements, etc.), the process can provide or restrict access to a set of digital assets of at least one of the digital wallets. The permitted access can be limited in frequency or time. For example, a typical default for the methodology is to always restrict access unless all of the one or more factors are satisfied with a high (e.g., +99%) confidence threshold” (Para. 0088)
obtain camera data from the venue, the camera data . . .; and (“Sensing component 116 can utilize sensor(s) 117 to collect the information (e.g., DNA matching, ear recognition, face recognition, gait recognition, iris recognition, retina recognition, finger geometry recognition, hand geometry recognition, odor recognition, typing recognition, vein recognition, voice recognition, signature stroke recognition, proximity, activity, declarations, affinity, . . . ). The sensor(s) 117 can reside within the device 102 or outside the device 102, and can communicate with other components in a wired or wireless fashion, depending on integration for respective embodiments. The sensor(s) 117 can comprise any suitable type of sensors (e.g., microphone, chemical sensors, pressure sensors, DNA sensors, cameras, scanners, analog sensors, digital sensors, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, accelerometers, activity sensors, gaze detection sensors, etc.) for collecting respective information regarding individuals, events, venues, activity, proximity, identity, context, environment, etc. The sensing component 116 collects, filters, conditions and prepares a subset of the sensed information for processing by the context component 118. For example, the sensing component 116 can transform analog data to digital information.” (Para. 0064); “Again, the blockchain 104 can be considered as a digital record of the set of blockchain transactions 108 that have been performed by the set of blockchain addresses 106. In other words, the blockchain 104 can be considered as conveying past transactional behaviors of the set of blockchain addresses 106. In various aspects, it can be useful to have increased confidence that a given blockchain transaction has been executed by an authorized individual. Employment of automated access or restriction to assets associated with digital wallet 101 provides a robust authentication technique that facilitates increased confidence as to authenticity of a transaction as compared to employing conventional authentication techniques, and facilitates ease of such transactions as a result of the automating access to or restricting access to digital assets associated with digital wallet 101 or digital wallets 103. As explained herein, the device 102 can receive, using sensing component 116 and sensors 117, a set of sensed information (e.g., user identity, user proximity, user affinity to an entity, user location, user activity, user preferences, user credentials, user solvency, user records, user history . . . ). A context component 118 can facilitate determining context of one or more individuals, an event, a situation, etc. An assessment of the received information and determined or inferred context can be performed by device 102 using one or more of its components to determine whether one or more factors have been satisfied or not. Based on such determination, an access component 122 can provide or restrict access to one or more assets (e.g., money, artwork, media, content, crypto-currency, NFTs . . . ) associated with the digital wallet 101 or restrict access. It is to be appreciated that the term “set” as employed herein can comprise one or more items, and a subset can comprise one or more, or even all items of the set.” (Para. 0063)
. . ., wherein the new NFT depicts of a portion of an altered computer generated (CG) representation (“AR or mixed reality enabled devices. . . overlay content may be 3D models generated based on 3D scanning real world objects” (Para. 0212); “Information about a product, such as country of origin, materials, ingredients, price, description, measurements, terms and conditions, 3D model of the physical product, etc., may be hashed and recorded in a blockchain.” (Para. 0212); “the NFTs may contain features that are identical or may be completely different or customized to the specifications of each individual” (Para. 0091)
of the object and is minted . . . (“Turning to FIG. 3 , in an embodiment of a digital wallet system 300, a non-fungible token (NFT) can be generated by minting component 304 (e.g., utilizing a third party NFT generation software). More particularly, the minting component 304 can tokenize a set of digital assets associated with the digital wallet 101, e.g., by uploading the set of digital assets to a marketplace platform (e.g., SuperRare®, Nifty Gateway®, Makerspace®, Foundation® . . . ) and issuing a token to guarantee its authenticity. The minting component 304 can pay “gas fees” to initiate the minting transaction on the blockchain 104 and publish the set of digital assets as an NFT on a marketplace. Once the set of digital assets has been minted on a marketplace as an NFT, the minting component 304 can restrict minting of that set of digital assets on another platform. Minting is how a set of digital assets becomes a part of the blockchain 104—a public ledger that is unchangeable and tamper-proof. Similar to the way that metal coins are minted and added into circulation, NFTs are also tokens that get “minted” once they are created. The set of digital assets is represented as an NFT, e.g., so it can then be purchased and traded in the market and digitally tracked as it is resold or collected again in the future.” (Para. 0082); “In an aspect, the one or more assets can include a first non-fungible token (NFT), that was created based on determining completion of an activity by the individual. In still another aspect, a characteristic of the digital wallet 101 can corresponds to a characteristic of the digital wallet 103, and in response to the determining that the characteristic (e.g., affiliation, type, affinity, membership, credentialed . . . ) of the digital wallet 101 corresponds to the digital wallet 103, minting (or creating) a non-fungible token (NFT) and providing it in the digital wallet 101 and the digital wallet 103. In an aspect, minting of the NFT can be based on determining mobile devices of respective users are within a threshold distance of each other. In still yet another aspect, minting of the NFT can be based on determining that a social media profile of a first user corresponds to a social media profile of a second user. In another aspect, the NFT can be utilized to charge against at least one of digital wallets 101 or 103. In aspect, the NFT can corresponds to an offer or a discount for an item or service. Thus, if a set of individuals are deemed within proximity of one another, or present at a venue, for example, the NFT can be utilized to provide the set of individuals with an offer or discount, e.g., free drink or 20% discount. The NFT can be utilized to access funds across multiple digital wallets and split a restaurant bill.” (Para. 0070); “In yet another embodiment, the device 102 can receive sensed extrinsic data from one or more sensors 117, and determine context, utilizing an artificial intelligence component 202 or context component 118, of one or more individuals. A determination can be made, (e.g., utilizing the artificial intelligence component 202), if one or more factors have been satisfied based on the extrinsic data and the one or more individuals' context. A smart contract can be utilized to create a non-fungible token (NFT) that provides access to the one or more individuals to a set of assets of digital wallet 101 or 103 as a function of the one or more factors being satisfied.” (Para. 0079).
Todasco does not disclose:
• “. . .by an object in a venue (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Spivack in the analogous art of augmented reality commerce platforms, teaches: “. . . by an object in a venue”. (See “associating a virtual object with a physical location in a real world environment.” (Claim 1); “rendering a model of the product offering, in the virtual object at the physical location in the real world environment.” (Claim 1); “managing a collection of virtual objects (VOBs), sharing and posting virtual objects or responding to virtual objects, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Through user interfaces of the present disclosure, a user (e.g., User A) for example, can add content, create a new collection of VOBs, add VOBs to a collection, customize the VOBs, edit the VOBs, or further add additional VOBs. The user can also select recipient(s) from their friend list, send any portion of the VOB collection to selected friends (e.g. to user B).” (Para. 0192-0193); “location sensor 340, and/or the timing module 342 can be input to a processing unit 334. The location sensor 340 can include GPS receivers, RF transceiver, an optical rangefinder, etc. The timing module 342 can include an internal clock, a connection to a time server (via NTP), an atomic clock, a GPS master clock, etc.” (Para. 0277).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Todasco with the technique of Spivack to include determining presence of a user of the user device by an object in a venue. Therefore, the incentives of improving context-aware AR interactions by tying access control and tokenized digital functionality to a users presence relative to a physical or location-anchored object in a real-world environment provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Todasco does not disclose:
• “depicting the object in field of view of the user device” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Spivack in the analogous art of augmented reality commerce platforms, teaches: “depicting the object in field of view of the user device”. (See “Data that is input to the client device 402 for example, via the image capture unit 452.” (Para. 0293); “from a camera view 501 (e.g., or a main user interface), the user can access their profile 503, access a map view 502 and/or access their inbox and/or activity feed 504. In example 505, via a camera view 501 can include a radar of virtual objects in the nearby physical location. The user can also access a map view 502, take a photo 506 and/or add a VOB to the world at or near the physical location 508.” (Para. 0297); “the model of the product offering depicted in the virtual object is rendered in 3D or substantially in 360 degrees.” (Para. 0459))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Todasco with the technique of Spivack to include obtaining camera data from the venue, the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device. Therefore, the incentives of enhancing contextual verification and AR rendering by using known camera-view feed and image-capture framework to confirm and display an object visible to the user device in the surrounding environment provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Todasco and Spivack does not disclose:
• “mint the new NFT, based on the sensor data identifying the location of the user device by the object and the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Andon in the analogous art of augmented reality commerce platforms, teaches: “mint the new NFT, based on the sensor data identifying the location of the user device by the object and the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device”. (See “Another example may require the user to “hunt” for CryptoKicks in a brick-and-mortar store by using a photographic “snap” or augmented reality (“AR”) function on a handheld personal computing device. . . the user must separately find a hidden CryptoKick in AR hidden within the store or local area before the digital asset can be transferred to their locker (i.e., the cryptographic key and the virtual object must both be separately acquired before the transfer occurs). . . obtaining the cryptographic key may enable the AR engine associated with a user device to initiate a game where the CryptoKick/virtual object associated with that key is locally hidden and available for the user to locate.” (Col. 9, ln. 6-19); “In one example, such as generally illustrated in FIG. 8, a user at a sporting event may be required to hunt for the CryptoKick within the confines of the event using the camera on a smartphone device. . . the GPS associated with the smartphone device may further constrain optical recognition capabilities to within a particular geofenced area. . . This two-part action may then transfer a token uniquely provisioned for that ticket to the user's locker.” (Col. 9, ln 23-33); “Upon purchase by a consumer, the UPID is used to unlock a cryptographic digital asset—a “CryptoKick”—composed of a collectible digital shoe and a unique non-fungible token (NFT) operating on a blockchain-based distributed computing platform. . . a unique crypto-token and corresponding private key (“KickID”) are automatically generated and assigned to the user's blockchain locker. . . a user location tracking device. . . generating a cryptographic digital asset associated with the article of footwear.” (Col. 8, ln. 41-59, and Col. 27, ln. 60)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Todasco and Spivack with the technique of Andon to include minting a new NFT based on the sensor data identifying the location of the user device by the object and the camera data depicting the object in the field of view of the user device. Therefore, the incentives of creating a newly generated blockchain-based digital asset that is contextually tied to a users sensed physical location and camera-confirmed AR interaction with an object, thereby improving authenticity, event/location specificity, and automated digital-asset generation provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Todasco, Spivack, and Andon do not disclose:
• “. . . and including camera telemetry data comprising a spatial orientation, in terms of polar and azimuthal angles, of a camera of the venue” and “[representation of the object] . . . [minted] using the camera telemetry data.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Pedrosa in the analogous art of augmented reality commerce platforms, teaches: “. . . and including camera telemetry data comprising a spatial orientation, in terms of polar and azimuthal angles, of a camera of the venue” and “[representation of the object] . . . [minted] using the camera telemetry data.” (“ In some embodiments, the telemetry information of the camera may be identical or similar to the telemetry information of the UV 100. It should be understood that steps 702, 704 and 706 may be performed in any order. A UV 110 may be equipped with a video camera as a payload 220, which streams video back to a control station 500. The control station 500 may display and/or store this video feed that it receives 702 from the camera. The UV 110 may consistently report its location and orientation and the direction/angle of view of the camera to the control station 500. The control station 500 and/or the ground station 240 may also know the field of view of the camera. This field of view may be hard-coded in the control station storage 510 or transmitted by the UV 110 at some point, along with the current zoom factor of the camera. In some embodiments, the zoom factor of the camera and the location and orientation of the UV 110 may be acquired some time before step 702 and stored in a cache. The ground station 240 may then calculate a horizon for the camera based upon the telemetry information of the UV 110 and the field of view and zoom factor of the camera. One algorithm that may be used to calculate the horizon is called H-COV-LUM. It operates on the principle that if an image is divided into two regions with a line, and then the variance of luminance is calculated for each region (on either side of the line), then the horizon is the line that minimizes the sum of those two variances. There are other algorithms for calculating the horizon. The calculated horizon may then be rendered as an overlay image on top of the video image in the display 402. Thus, the method 700 calculates and renders a ground plane based on telemetry information from the UV 110.” (Para. 0055); “If an object of a known size is present in the video image, the user may be able to draw a line on the overlay (as noted above), but rather than have the UI 406 report the distance between the endpoints of the line, the user specifies that distance through the UI 406. This may allow the recalculation/recalibration of the overlay grid 902, 1002 with this new information. The calculated values of the distances in the grid 902, 1002 may be re-adjusted to align the calculations with the empirical value that is being provided. For example, the calculation of the grid 902, 1002 may indicate a distance of 1030 metres (m) (or any other distance) between two points.” (Para. 0069); “ The method 800 comprises the method 700, calculating 812 a three dimensional (3D) model of the ground plane, and rendering 814 a grid as an overlay image on the video feed. The grid may shows equal distances at ground level. As shown in FIG. 6, the grid 602 may be an mRad grid. FIG. 9 illustrates, in a screenshot, an example of a rectangular grid 902, in accordance with some embodiments, stretching from the bottom of the field of view out to the horizon 904. The user can then observe ground distances from this grid by viewing the image overlaid over the video feed on the display 402. The grid 902 is rectangular and made of major grids 906 where each major grid 906 is sub-divided into a minor grid 908. The grid 902 spacing details may be calculated dynamically (e.g., based on the distance to the ground of the camera) or may be predetermined and selected in a user setting..” (Para. 0056))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Todasco and Spivack with the technique of Pedrosa to include obtaining camera data depicting an object in the field of the view together with camera telemetry. Therefore, the incentives of improving context-aware AR interactions by tying access control and tokenized digital functionality to a users presence relative to a physical or location-anchored object in a real-world environment provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 3, Todasco teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the venue comprises a virtual venue of an interactive video environment: (“AR or mixed reality enabled devices, such as wearable smart glasses, head mounted devices, holographic devices, or smartphone applications overlay digital content on top of a real world view, thus, enhancing a user's experience of the real world. The overlay content may be 3D models generated based on 3D scanning real world objects. AR enables users to experience online shopping in a virtual environment.”, and “The customer may examine a 3D model of a shirt as he or she would in the real world. Additionally, the customer may virtually try on the shirt using a 3D model of the customer's body. If the customer decides to purchase the shirt, the customer may initiate a transaction with the merchant of the store. A transaction may be submitted to the blockchain via the customer's digital wallet to transfer money (cryptocurrency) from the customer to the merchant. Various smart contracts may be utilized to implement various aspects of the e-commerce process.”.(Para. [0212] – [0213]).
As per Claim 4, Todasco teaches:
The system of claim 3, wherein the interactive video environment provides at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) experience to the user. (“A user can enter commands and information into the computer 802 through one or more wired/wireless input devices, e.g., a keyboard 838, a touch screen 840, and a pointing device, such as a mouse 842. Other input devices (not shown) can include a microphone, an infrared (IR) remote control, a radio frequency (RF) remote control, or other remote control, a joystick, a virtual reality controller and/or virtual reality headset, a game pad, a stylus pen, an image input device, e.g., camera(s), a gesture sensor input device, a vision movement sensor input device, an emotion or facial detection device, a biometric input device, e.g., fingerprint or iris scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 804 through an input device interface 844 that can be coupled to the system bus 808, but can be connected by other interfaces”. (Para. [0113]).
As per Claim 5, Todasco teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the portion of the altered CG representation of the object is determined based on one or more of a loyalty status of the user or ownership by the user of one or more other NFTs. (“A token may refer to an entry in the blockchain that belongs to a blockchain address. The entry may comprise information indicating ownership of an asset. The token may represent money, a contract, property, records, access rights, status, supply, demand, alarm, trigger, reputation, ticket, or any other asset that may be represented in digital form.”. (Para. 0157).
As per Claim 12, Todasco teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: recording, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, ownership of the new NFT by the user on a secure transaction ledger; and transferring, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, the new NFT to a digital wallet of the user. (“A token may refer to an entry in the blockchain that belongs to a blockchain address. The entry may comprise information indicating ownership of an asset. The token may represent money, a contract, property, records, access rights, status, supply, demand, alarm, trigger, reputation, ticket, or any other asset that may be represented in digital form. For example, a token may refer to an entry related to cryptocurrency that is used for a specific purpose or may represent ownership of a real-world asset, such as Fiat currency or real-estate. Token contracts refer to cryptographic tokens that represent a set of rules that are encoded in a smart contract. The person that owns the private key corresponding to the blockchain address may access the tokens at the address. Thus, the blockchain address may represent an identity of the person that owns the tokens”. (Para. 0157); “In one example, a blockchain based transaction may generally involve a transfer of data or value between entities, such as the first user 1010 of the first client device 1020 and the second user 1015 of the second client device 1025 in FIG. 10.” (Para. [0157]); “In one or more embodiments, an NFT may be minted for each participating digital wallet ( an NFT for each digital wallet of each respective user of the specific group of users)” (Para. 0091); “Private keys, public keys, and addresses may be managed and secured using software, such as a digital wallet. Private keys may also be stored and secured using hardware. The digital wallet may also enable the user to conduct transactions and manage the balance. The digital wallet may be stored or maintained online or offline, and in software or hardware or both hardware and software. Without the public/private keys, a user has no way to prove ownership of assets. Additionally, anyone with access a user's public/private keys may access the user's assets. While the assets may be recorded on the blockchain, the user may not be able to access them without the private key.” (Para. 0155).
As per Claim 13, Todasco teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the venue comprises a virtual venue of an interactive video environment.”. (“AR or mixed reality enabled devices, such as wearable smart glasses, head mounted devices, holographic devices, or smartphone applications overlay digital content on top of a real world view, thus, enhancing a user's experience of the real world. The overlay content may be 3D models generated based on 3D scanning real world objects. AR enables users to experience online shopping in a virtual environment.” (Para. [0212]); “The customer may examine a 3D model of a shirt as he or she would in the real world. Additionally, the customer may virtually try on the shirt using a 3D model of the customer's body. If the customer decides to purchase the shirt, the customer may initiate a transaction with the merchant of the store. A transaction may be submitted to the blockchain via the customer's digital wallet to transfer money (cryptocurrency) from the customer to the merchant. Various smart contracts may be utilized to implement various aspects of the e-commerce process.” (Para. [0213]).
As per Claim 14, Todasco teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the interactive video environment provides at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) experience to the user.” (“A user can enter commands and information into the computer 802 through one or more wired/wireless input devices, e.g., a keyboard 838, a touch screen 840, and a pointing device, such as a mouse 842. Other input devices (not shown) can include a microphone, an infrared (IR) remote control, a radio frequency (RF) remote control, or other remote control, a joystick, a virtual reality controller and/or virtual reality headset, a game pad, a stylus pen, an image input device, e.g., camera(s), a gesture sensor input device, a vision movement sensor input device, an emotion or facial detection device, a biometric input device, e.g., fingerprint or iris scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 804 through an input device interface 844 that can be coupled to the system bus 808, but can be connected by other interfaces”. (Todasco, para. [0113]).
As per Claim 15, Todasco teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the portion of the altered CG representation of the object is determined based on one or more of a loyalty status of the user or ownership by the user of one or more other NFTs. (“A token may refer to an entry in the blockchain that belongs to a blockchain address. The entry may comprise information indicating ownership of an asset. The token may represent money, a contract, property, records, access rights, status, supply, demand, alarm, trigger, reputation, ticket, or any other asset that may be represented in digital form.”. (Para. 0157).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todasco in view of Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa in further view of Fernandez (NBA Top Shot: Everything you need to know about 'next level collectibles' and what it means for the league – CBSSports.com) (hereinafter “Fernandez”)
As per Claim 2, Todasco teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: record ownership of the new NFT by the user on a secure transaction ledger; . . .. (“A token may refer to an entry in the blockchain that belongs to a blockchain address. The entry may comprise information indicating ownership of an asset. The token may represent money, a contract, property, records, access rights, status, supply, demand, alarm, trigger, reputation, ticket, or any other asset that may be represented in digital form.”. (Para. 0157).
Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose:
• “and transfer the new NFT to a digital wallet of the user.” (claim 2).
However, as per Claim 2, Fernandez in the analogous art of blockchain-based NFT’s, teaches: “. . . and transfer the NFT to a digital wallet of the user. .”. Fernandez teaches a blockchain “wallet” in which the“ collection of digital basketball highlights” may be stored. (Fernandez, pg. 7, and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of Fernandez to generate “ a collection of digital [live event] highlights” on a blockchain “and then show off that collection [of event-based NFT’s] to others” via a blockchain-based “wallet”. (Fernandez, pg. 2, and 7). Therefore, the incentives of generating and storing a digital token of a live event provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todasco in view of Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa in further view of Ordano et al. (Decentraland Whitepaper - 2017).
As per Claim 6, Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Todasco does not disclose the limitation of “wherein the new NFT further depicts the user as engaged in one of observing the object or interacting with the object”.
However, Ordano teaches a blockchain based virtual reality, with a “scripting system to enable interactive content”, such that “Users can travel through . . . and interact with applications” and adjust the “behavior and interactions of 3D objects, sound, and applications running on [virtual] land parcels”. (Ordano, pg. 7, para. 2). The Ordano reference further describes that the user’s can be represented via “avatars” which can “[interact] with the virtual environment”. (Ordano, pg. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of Ordano to generate a digital token depicting a user observing or interacting with an object or event within a venue. Therefore, the incentives of enriching “[t]he social experience of users” with generating a digital token depicting the user within the venue provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (Ordano, pg. 11).
As per Claim 9, Todasco teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose the limitation of “wherein the new NFT depicts the object from a perspective of the user.”.
However, Ordano teaches a blockchain based virtual reality, with a “scripting system to enable interactive content”, such that “Users can travel through . . . and interact with applications” and adjust the “behavior and interactions of 3D objects, sound, and applications running on [virtual] land parcels”. (Ordano, pg. 7). The Ordano reference further describes that the user’s can be represented via “avatars” which can “[interact] with the virtual environment”. (Ordano, pg. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of Ordano to generate a digital token depicting an interaction with an object (e.g. executing a scoring play) or event within a venue from the perspective of the user. Therefore, the incentives of enriching “[t]he social experience of users” with generating a digital token depicting the user interacting with an object within the venue from the perspective of the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (Ordano, pg. 11).
As per Claim 16, Todasco teaches the limitations of claim 11 above. Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose the limitation of “wherein the new NFT further depicts the user as engaged in one of observing the object or interacting with the object”. However, Ordano teaches a blockchain based virtual reality, with a “scripting system to enable interactive content”, such that “Users can travel through . . . and interact with applications” and adjust the “behavior and interactions of 3D objects, sound, and applications running on [virtual] land parcels”. (Ordano, pg. 7). The Ordano reference further describes that the user’s can be represented via “avatars” which can “[interact] with the virtual environment”. (Ordano, pg. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of Ordano to generate a digital token depicting a user observing or interacting with an object or event within a venue. Therefore, the incentives of enriching “[t]he social experience of users” with generating a digital token depicting the user within the venue provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (Ordano, pg. 11).
As per Claim 19, Todasco teaches the limitations of claim 11 above. Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose the limitation of “The method of claim 11, wherein the new NFT depicts the object from a perspective of the user”.
However, Ordano teaches a blockchain based virtual reality, with a “scripting system to enable interactive content”, such that “Users can travel through . . . and interact with applications” and adjust the “behavior and interactions of 3D objects, sound, and applications running on [virtual] land parcels”. (Ordano, pg. 7). The Ordano reference further describes that the user’s can be represented via “avatars” which can “[interact] with the virtual environment”. (Ordano, pg. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of Ordano to generate a digital token depicting an interaction with an object (e.g. executing a scoring play) or event within a venue from the perspective of the user. Therefore, the incentives of enriching “[t]he social experience of users” with generating a digital token depicting the user interacting with an object within the venue from the perspective of the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (Ordano, pg. 11).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todasco in view of Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa in further view of the Barbashin reference. (WO2023018642A1) (hereinafter “Barbashin”).
As per Claim 10, Todasco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the user is a first user, and wherein before minting the new NFT, the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: receive, from a second user device of a second user, affinity data associating the second user with the first user; receive another sensor data identifying a location of the second user device; and obtain another camera data from the venue, the another camera data depicting at least one of the second user or a field of view of the second user relative to the venue; wherein minting the new NFT uses the sensor data, the another sensor data, the camera data, and the another camera data to produce the new NFT as a group NFT based on collaborative engagement by the first user and the second user with the object”.
However, in the analogous art of NFT management, Barbashin teaches “In an embodiment, a computer-implemented method of creating a collaborative non- fungible token (NFT) involves: receiving and digitally storing a set of files uploaded by a plurality of users, each file comprising digital content; programmatically associating the set of files with a corresponding unique project identifier; receiving, from a user of the set of users, digital input specifying a final digital composition comprising information from at least one file of the set of files associated with the unique project identifier; digitally storing the final digital composition as a digital object in a database; receiving digital input from the plurality of users specifying an allocation of authorship shares, the allocation of authorship shares representing a distribution of ownership rights in the digital object; minting, on a blockchain, a non-fungible token comprising a reference to the digital object; creating, on the blockchain, a smart contract specifying a fractional ownership of the digital object according to the allocation of authorship shares, the smart contract comprising a pointer to a metadata file associated with the non-fungible token, the metadata file comprising one or more links to one or more corresponding digital assets associated with the non- fungible token, each digital asset comprising a representation of the non-fungible token.” (Para. 0025); “Some embodiments are programmed to implement gamification of NFTs, including through use of the digital animated frame. Embodiments may also offer a Geo-NFT that may be obtained based on an account holder, user or individual, with a mobile computing device that is executing a compatible web app or mobile app, visiting a location in the physical world during a period of time in which the mobile computing device records the location, for example using a location service of the mobile device operating system, and transmits location data to a server computer. A Geo-NFT may be obtained by a user scanning a QR code with the mobile computing device, or by geofencing.” (Para. 0023); “In an embodiment, the disclosure provides computer-implemented systems and methods for creating a collaborative Non-Fungible Token (NFT) that provides proof of ownership of a digital object. The collaborative NFT is itself a digital object that is created programmatically and digitally stored. The collaborative NFT may represent the collective efforts of computers under the control of a group of content creators in the creation of the digital object. The collaborative NFT may also be referred to as a collective NFT.” (Para. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of the Barbashin reference to generate a digital token based on the data from multiple users within a venue. Therefore, the incentives of providing users with an enhanced digital experience provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 20, Todasco discloses the limitations of claim 11 above. Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the user is a first user, and wherein before the new NFT is minted the method further comprises: receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor from a second user device, affinity data associating the second user with the first user; receiving, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, another sensor data identifying a location of the second user device; and obtaining, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, another camera data from the venue, the another camera data depicting at least one of the second user or a field of view of the second user relative to the venue; wherein minting the new NFT uses the sensor data, the another sensor data, the camera data, and the another camera data to produce the new NFT as a group NFT based on collaborative engagement by the first user and the second user with the object”.
However, in the analogous art of NFT management, Barbashin teaches “In an embodiment, a computer-implemented method of creating a collaborative non- fungible token (NFT) involves: receiving and digitally storing a set of files uploaded by a plurality of users, each file comprising digital content; programmatically associating the set of files with a corresponding unique project identifier; receiving, from a user of the set of users, digital input specifying a final digital composition comprising information from at least one file of the set of files associated with the unique project identifier; digitally storing the final digital composition as a digital object in a database; receiving digital input from the plurality of users specifying an allocation of authorship shares, the allocation of authorship shares representing a distribution of ownership rights in the digital object; minting, on a blockchain, a non-fungible token comprising a reference to the digital object; creating, on the blockchain, a smart contract specifying a fractional ownership of the digital object according to the allocation of authorship shares, the smart contract comprising a pointer to a metadata file associated with the non-fungible token, the metadata file comprising one or more links to one or more corresponding digital assets associated with the non- fungible token, each digital asset comprising a representation of the non-fungible token.” (Para. 0025); “Some embodiments are programmed to implement gamification of NFTs, including through use of the digital animated frame. Embodiments may also offer a Geo-NFT that may be obtained based on an account holder, user or individual, with a mobile computing device that is executing a compatible web app or mobile app, visiting a location in the physical world during a period of time in which the mobile computing device records the location, for example using a location service of the mobile device operating system, and transmits location data to a server computer. A Geo-NFT may be obtained by a user scanning a QR code with the mobile computing device, or by geofencing.” (Para. 0023); “In an embodiment, the disclosure provides computer-implemented systems and methods for creating a collaborative Non-Fungible Token (NFT) that provides proof of ownership of a digital object. The collaborative NFT is itself a digital object that is created programmatically and digitally stored. The collaborative NFT may represent the collective efforts of computers under the control of a group of content creators in the creation of the digital object. The collaborative NFT may also be referred to as a collective NFT.” (Para. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Todasco, Spivack, Andon, and Pedrosa with the technique of the Barbashin reference to generate a digital token based on the data from multiple users within a venue. Therefore, the incentives of providing users with an enhanced digital experience provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
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 Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
