DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed April 6, 2026. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and under examination in this case. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are currently amended. Claim 20 was previously canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 6, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1-19 and 21, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims, as currently amended, are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, the claims involve the abstract idea of receiving an offer, from a broker, determining the broker has the right to sell the item, determining the offer is approved, executing the transaction, recording the transaction, which is grouped within the “commercial or legal interactions” grouping of abstract ideas (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)).
Applicant further argues that the claims recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of control circuitry and a blockchain to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving an offer, from a broker, determining the broker has the right to sell the item, determining the offer is approved, executing the transaction, recording the transaction. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 11, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses, or suggests, receiving a first interface input associating an NFT of a crypto wallet with a wallet-associated user profile in the virtual environment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Tai at, e.g., par 319 “receiving, via the user interface . . . associating the NFT with a user account, wherein the NFT is viewable on the selected blockchain via the user interface and further transferable to any of the plurality of blockchains via the payment service” also par 92 “ payment service servers 102 manage a ledger storing hash-linked chains of blocks of how data is stored on different blockchains, e.g., related to the NFT, or the user’s wallet storing such NFT. Through a plurality of smart contracts or chain code, the payment service servers 102 can maintain a consensus between different blockchains with relation to user’s wallets and underlying NFTs . . . “
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 11, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses, or suggests, receiving a second interface input associating the NFT with a first user profile in the virtual environment, wherein the first user profile is distinct from the wallet-associated user profile.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Tai, at, e.g., par 56 “each blockchain (e.g., the first blockchain 180, the second blockchain 182, the third blockchain 184, and the Nth blockchain 186) can be associated with a NFT marketplace operating on a particular standard that may be specific to the particular blockchain. In at least one example, each blockchain (e.g., the first blockchain 180, the second blockchain 182, the third blockchain 184, and the Nth blockchain 186) can have a digital wallet (e.g., a first digital wallet 181, a second digital wallet 183, a third digital wallet 185, and an Nth digital wallet 187) associated therewith for holding NFTs” also “receiving, via the user interface . . . associating the NFT with a user account, wherein the NFT is viewable on the selected blockchain via the user interface and further transferable to any of the plurality of blockchains via the payment service”.
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 1-19, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 and 21, are directed to a method, while claims 11-19 are directed to a system. Hence, the claimed invention is directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of abstract idea. The claims are directed towards the abstract idea of commercial/sales activities or transactions. More specifically, the claims involve the abstract idea of receiving an offer, from a broker, determining the broker has the right to sell the item, determining the offer is approved, executing the transaction, recording the transaction, which is grouped within the “commercial or legal interactions” grouping of abstract ideas (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a control circuitry, blockchain, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)). The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) of control circuitry and a blockchain to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving an offer, from a broker, determining the broker has the right to sell the item, determining the offer is approved, executing the transaction, recording the transaction. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a computer. "Under our precedents, that is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent—eligible invention." See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.15.
The dependent claims 2-9, 12-19, and 21 do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale, and given that each depends from claim 1 or 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zolfonoon et al (US 2021/0036866) in view of Spivack et al (US 2022/0366061) and in view of Mauro et al (US 7,720,742) and Tai et al (US 2023/0334490).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 –
Zolfonoon discloses a method of executing an electronic transaction by using a broker (par 44, 46) in a virtual environment, the method comprising:
receiving, by the first device, an indication of a third user interface input on a second device distinct from the first device, wherein the indication of the user interface input indicates an offer on the NFT, wherein the NFT is delegated to the first user profile as an NFT broker, wherein the offer is to sell or trade the NFT to an offering user profile; (par 122, 127 “may publish and/or make available a listing of objects that it is permitted to sell or license. A data consumer may review this listing and identify a specific object(s) that it wishes to purchase or license” (offer))
based at least in part on determining that the NFT was delegated, based at least in part on the second interface input, to the NFT broker to sell or trade the NFT: (par 127 “determine whether the data broker service is authorized to sell or license the specified object(s)” – there would be no reason to determine whether the broker is authorized unless one sees that rights have been delegated to the broker, also par 130).
based at least in part on the determining that the approval of the NFT transaction was obtained, causing execution of the NFT transaction. (par 134).
Zolfonoon does not specifically teach receiving a first interface input associating an NFT of a crypto wallet with a wallet-associated user profile in the virtual environment; and receiving a second interface input associating the NFT with a first user profile in the virtual environment, wherein the first user profile is distinct from the wallet-associated user profile.
Tai however, discloses receiving a first interface input associating an NFT of a crypto wallet with a wallet-associated user profile in the virtual environment; (par 319 “receiving, via the user interface . . . associating the NFT with a user account, wherein the NFT is viewable on the selected blockchain via the user interface and further transferable to any of the plurality of blockchains via the payment service” also par 92 “ payment service servers 102 manage a ledger storing hash-linked chains of blocks of how data is stored on different blockchains, e.g., related to the NFT, or the user’s wallet storing such NFT. Through a plurality of smart contracts or chain code, the payment service servers 102 can maintain a consensus between different blockchains with relation to user’s wallets and underlying NFTs . . . “) and
receiving a second interface input associating the NFT with a first user profile in the virtual environment, wherein the first user profile is distinct from the wallet-associated user profile. (par 56 “each blockchain (e.g., the first blockchain 180, the second blockchain 182, the third blockchain 184, and the Nth blockchain 186) can be associated with a NFT marketplace operating on a particular standard that may be specific to the particular blockchain. In at least one example, each blockchain (e.g., the first blockchain 180, the second blockchain 182, the third blockchain 184, and the Nth blockchain 186) can have a digital wallet (e.g., a first digital wallet 181, a second digital wallet 183, a third digital wallet 185, and an Nth digital wallet 187) associated therewith for holding NFTs” also “receiving, via the user interface . . . associating the NFT with a user account, wherein the NFT is viewable on the selected blockchain via the user interface and further transferable to any of the plurality of blockchains via the payment service”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon with the wallets of Tai for a more user-friendly yet secure transaction.
Zolfonoon does not specifically disclose causing, by a first device, display in the virtual environment of an indication of an NFT in association with an avatar that visually represents a first user in the virtual environment, wherein the first user is associated with the first user profile.
Zolfonoon discloses blockchains, (par 42) as well as displaying options for selection, as well as identification information for data obtained or to be obtained. (par 88)
Spivak discloses NFT transactions (par 119) as well as displaying information or data among client devices (par 137), wherein the NFT is associated with a second user profile.(par 119)
Further, Zolfonoon does not specifically teach NFT transactions in a virtual environment.
However, Spivack, in related art ,does teach NFT transactions in a virtual environment. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon and Spivak in order to expand the items that can be handled by brokers and in order to expand NFT transactions.
Zolfonoon in view of Spivak does not disclose an avatar that visually represents a first user in the virtual environment.
Tai, however, does disclose an avatar that visually represents a first user in the virtual environment. (par 96).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon with the avatars of Tai for a more user-friendly transaction.
Zolfonoon does not specifically disclose determining, based at least in part on the set of delegation rights, that the NFT transaction that is a subject of the offer requires an approval of the NFT transaction prior to execution, and causing recording of the NFT transaction in a blockchain based at least in part on credential data in the crypto wallet.
Mauro discloses determining that the set of rights require an approval of a transaction related to the delegated item prior to its execution; (col 9 ln 60- col 10 ln 22; col 31 ln – col 33 ln 12) determining that an approval was obtained; (col 9 ln 60- col 10 ln 22) and recording the transaction based at least in part on credential data (fig3/398)
Spivack, in related art does teach NFT transactions. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon, Spivack, Tai, and Mauro so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers.
Regarding claims 2 and 12 –
Zolfonoon teaches determining that a plurality of items are displayed (par 122, 127);
receiving an indication that the item delegated to the broker for brokering was selected from the plurality of items displayed. (par 127)
Zolfonoon does not specifically teach NFT transactions in a virtual environment.
However, Spivack, in related art does teach NFT transactions in a virtual environment. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon and Spivak in order to expand the items that can be handled by brokers and in order to expand NFT transactions.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 –
Zolfonoon teaches wherein item is delegated to the broker of the items either privately or publicly. (abs, par 3)
However, Spivack, in related art does teach wherein the item is an NFT. (par 119) Further, Spivack discloses, in related art NFT transactions in a virtual environment. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon and Spivak in order to expand the items that can be handled by brokers and in order to expand NFT transactions.
Regarding claims 4 and 14 –
Mauro discloses wherein the delegation rights restrict the broker of items to displaying the digital items in an environment selected by the broker. (col 9 ln 7-39)
Spivack discloses, in related art wherein the items are NFT’s as well as NFT transactions in a virtual environment. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mauro and Spivak with Zolfonoon in order to expand the items that can be handled by brokers and in order to expand NFT transactions.
Regarding claims 5 and 15 –
Mauro discloses wherein the delegation rights allow the broker to negotiate a price for a sale of the item. (fit 48A and 48B, col 31 ln 50-col 32 ln 33)
Spivack discloses, in related art wherein the items are NFT’s as well as NFT transactions in a virtual environment. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mauro and Spivak in order to expand the items that can be handled by brokers and in order to expand NFT transactions.
Regarding claims 6 and 16 –
Mauro discloses wherein a price window is defined within which the broker may negotiate the price for the sale. (col 15 ln 50-52)
Spivack discloses, in related art wherein the items are NFT’s. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon with Spivack and Mauro so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers.
Regarding claims 7 and 17 –
Spivack discloses, wherein the NFT transaction is a sale of the NFT from a current owner to a buyer. (par 214, 118)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon and Spivack so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers.
Regarding claims 8 and 18 –
Mauro teaches wherein the recording of the transaction in the ledger identifies ownership of the item with the buyer after the transaction has been completed. (fig3/398)
Spivack, in related art does teach NFT transactions. (par 119)
However, Zolfonoon does disclose a block chain ledger (par 42)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon, Spivack, and Mauro so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers and for greater security in record keeping.
Regarding claims 9 and 19 –
Spivack discloses that the NFT transaction is an exchange of NFTs between a current owner and another user. (par 114, 115)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon and Spivack so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers.
Regarding claim 10 –
Mauro discloses determining that a buyer of the item has funds for conducting the transaction. (Fig3/385, col 10 ln 30-33).
Spivack, in related art does teach NFT transactions. (par 119)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon, Spivack, and Mauro so as to expand the rights delegated to brokers and for greater transaction security.
Regarding claim 21 –
Tai discloses wherein the avatar that visually represents the first user in the virtual environment is a first avatar, wherein the offering user profile is associated with a second avatar that visually represents an offering user in the virtual environment (par 96), and further comprising:
determining that the second avatar is in proximity in the virtual environment to the first avatar, wherein the indication of the NFT is displayed based at least in part on the determining that the second avatar is in proximity in the virtual environment to the first avatar. (par 96)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zolfonoon with the avatars of Tai for a more user-friendly transaction.
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 CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights