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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application claims priority from Provisional Patent Application No. 63/317,421, filed 3/7/2022.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 2/27/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 and 21-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[the amended] limitations make clear that the claimed invention is directed to additional elements that go beyond an abstract idea, and that the claims recite specific, non-conventional, and technical features” (Remarks Pages 6 and 7). This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. With respect to the claim amendments, the examiner notes a system for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), comprising: a purchasing platform computing system in communication with a purchaser computer system; and a purchasing software module executed by the purchasing platform computer system, the purchasing software module causing the purchasing platform computing system to: electronically purchase; an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system; the NFT electronically accessible by the user; and storing in a database have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, it is noted that, as discussed in the below paragraphs, these additional elements do not amount to a technological improvement, but rather implement the claimed abstract idea in a technological environment, without effectuating an improvement to the claimed additional elements or other technology. The amended claims further recite limitations such as displaying information relating to a product currently available for purchase; allowing a user to purchase the product; creating a user account and linking the user account to the product in response to purchasing of the product; in response to purchasing of the product by the user, receiving information validating ownership by the user of the product; linking the information with the user account, the information accessible by the user; and generating and storing information relating to the user’s account, the product, and the information in response to purchasing of the product by the user. These limitations represent certain methods of organizing human activity, as Applicant’s specification ([0015][0016][0023]) illustrates that products may be purchased through interaction with a point of sale computer system 28 installed at a retail store, and through a vendor, via auction or direct sale. Accordingly, the claims recite the generation and transmission of data for the purpose of validating a product purchase. These limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial or legal interactions, since the claimed activities pertain to vendors providing products for purchase, and validation of said products after being purchased by a user (see at least Specification [0014-0016][0023]).
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract into a practical application because “[the claims result] in processing efficiencies since the system that handles the purchasing activities by users need not dedicate processing time and computing resources towards generating NFTs” (Remarks Page 7). This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In the instant case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, but rather focuses on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are merely invoked as a tool. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016) citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0014] of Applicant’s specification, which describes the claimed invention as comprising an NFT processing platform that generates NFTs for usage by the system and verifies blockchain-based NFT transactions. However, the statements made in Applicant’s specification do not provide any detail regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer or other technology, thereby making Applicant’s arguments conclusory. Although the claims include computer technology such as a system for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), comprising: a purchasing platform computing system in communication with a purchaser computer system; and a purchasing software module executed by the purchasing platform computer system, the purchasing software module causing the purchasing platform computing system to: electronically purchase; an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system; the NFT electronically accessible by the user; and storing in a database, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify an improvement to computer capabilities. The claims are not directed to improving technology via “processing efficiencies”, but are directed to improving the commercial task of validating product purchases. It is further noted that the specification discloses that the system itself may be programmed to generate NFTs, rather than the NFT processing platform, such that the system need not communicate with the NFT processing platform in order to generate NFTs (see at least specification [0014]). The claimed process, while arguably resulting in an improved process for validating product purchases, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, there is no improvement to any of the claimed additional elements. The claimed process is utilizing known computing systems, platforms, and modules to improve a validation process for a user that has purchased a product. Accordingly, the claims do not recite technological improvements.
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because “[the claim limitations] are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities… none of the cited prior art reference disclose, teach or suggest such an arrangement” (Remarks Page 7). Examiner notes that the 35 USC 101 rejection filed in the Final Rejection (8/27/2025) did not make the statement that the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and accordingly Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim limitations not being well-understood, routine, or conventional is not applicable. Furthermore, the question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981). As made clear by the courts, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C, 103 has no bearing on the eligibility of the claims over 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, as discussed in the above paragraphs, the amended claims amount to mere implementation of the abstract idea in a technological environment without effectuating an improvement to the claimed additional elements or other technology, and accordingly the claims are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims overcome the currently cited prior art because “[Andon] does not disclose [the amended limitations] as required by independent Claims 1 and 8” (Remarks Pages 7 and 8). This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. Andon has been further relied upon to teach receiving an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system, at (Andon, [Col 16 Ln 11-67][Col 17 Ln 1-67]), teaching a method for generating collectible digital assets, performed via an algorithm executed by a CPU, beginning with a user purchasing a pair of footwear, where the transaction is validated, and upon confirmation that a cryptographical digital asset has been authorized, a cryptographic digital asset for the transacted article of footwear is generated, which includes generating a unique, encrypted asset code with an address, a token, and a public and private key pair. The asset is then transmitted to a blockchain for storage. Andon ([Col 14 Ln 38-56][Col 18 Ln 5-32]) further discloses that a host system 68 may be in communication with the blockchain 60 in order to provision/create new assets, and additionally that the host system hosts a GUI that is operable to translate the data stored in the generated encrypted keys into a visual image, which is representative of the cryptographical digital asset. The additionally cited portions of Andon show that the host system, in communication with the blockchain of the decentralized computing system, is responsible for the generating of new cryptographic digital assets in response to purchases made by customers via online store transactions, and providing said cryptographic digital assets to the blockchain of the decentralized computing system. Therefore, the host system reads on the claimed NFT processing platform, as it is responsible for the generation and provision of digital assets to the decentralized computing system/blockchain. Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained under 35 USC 102.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims do not disclose how the unique NFT is generated (Remarks Page 8), this argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The claim recites “in response to electronic purchasing of the product by the user, receiving an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system”. While this limitation specifies that the NFT is generated by an NFT processing platform, it does not provide any detail as to how the NFT is generated. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would be receiving an NFT that is generated by a computing component in communication with the purchasing platform computer system, which is taught by Andon, as discussed above.
Furthermore, in light of independent claims 1 and 8 standing rejected under 35 USC 102, dependent claims 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 22-23 and 25-26 remain rejected under 35 USC 103. Previously cited Harris, Winters and Withrow are not deficient, as Andon has been further relied upon to teach the amended independent claims.
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 1-12 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are directed towards a machine. Claims 8-12 and 24-26 are directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 21-26 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-12 and 21-26).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A method for product purchases, comprising:
display[ing] information relating to a product currently available for purchase;
allowing a user to purchase the product;
creating a user account and linking the user account to the product in response to purchasing of the product by the user;
in response to purchasing of the product by the user, receiving information validating ownership by the user of the product;
linking the information with the user account, the information accessible by the user; and generating and storing information relating to the user’s account, the product, and the information in response to purchasing of the product by the user.
Claims 8 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of validating product purchases. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including a system for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), comprising: a purchasing platform computing system in communication with a purchaser computer system; and a purchasing software module executed by the purchasing platform computer system, the purchasing software module causing the purchasing platform computing system to: electronically purchase; an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system; the NFT electronically accessible by the user; and storing in a database. Claim 8 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 8 specifying that the abstract idea of validating product purchases is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 8 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of a system for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), comprising: a purchasing platform computing system in communication with a purchaser computer system; and a purchasing software module executed by the purchasing platform computer system, the purchasing software module causing the purchasing platform computing system to: electronically purchase; an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system; the NFT electronically accessible by the user; and storing in a database amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 21-26, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 8, and do not recite any additional elements aside from those recite in independent claims 1 and 8. Therefore, claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 11, and 21-26, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 8. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
wherein the purchaser computer system comprises a mobile phone;
further comprising a Quick Response (QR) code scannable by the purchaser computer system, the QR code allowing access to the purchasing platform computer system for purchasing of the product;
wherein the purchasing platform computing system communicates with one or more of a vendor computer system or a point of sale computer system;
wherein the system validates transactions against a blockchain;
wherein two-factor authentication secures access to the system; and
wherein the system communicates with one or more vendor sales or inventory management systems and automatically provides notifications to product vendors with links to product transactions.
The additional elements of a mobile phone, a Quick Response (QR) code scannable by the purchase computing system, one or more of a vendor computer system or a point of sale computer system, a blockchain, two-factor authentication, and one or more vendor sales or inventory management systems are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-12 and 21-26 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 8, 11, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by previously cited Andon (US 10,505,726 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andon discloses A system for product purchases and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), comprising ([Col 7 Ln 51-56][Col 8 Ln 40-45]):
a purchasing platform computing system (decentralized computing system 30) in communication with a purchaser computer system ([Col 13 Ln 15-33] FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic illustration of an exemplary decentralized computing system, designated generally as 30… Wireless data exchanges between the user 11 and remote computing nodes on the decentralized computing system 30 may be conducted directly, e.g., through direct communications between the host system 34/cloud computing system 36 and a user device 39; [Col 18 Ln 33-56] computing system 30 includes a blockchain); and
a purchasing software module executed by the purchasing platform computer system, the purchasing software module causing the purchasing platform computing system to ([Col 16 Ln 11-29] an improved method for generating collectible digital assets protected by cryptographic tokens is described at 100… the operations of the method are representative of an algorithm… executed, for example, by a resident or remote controller, central processing unit (CPU), control logic circuit, or other module or device or network of devices; [Col 16 Ln 47-57] Utilizing a portable electronic device 39, such as smartphone 40 or smartwatch 42 of FIG. 2, the user 11 may launch a dedicated mobile software application (“app”) or a web-based applet, such as NIKE+®, that collaborates with a server-class (backend or middleware) computer (e.g., remote host system 34) to communicate with the various peer devices on decentralized computing system 30. During a communication session with the host system 34, for example, the user 11 may purchase a pair of the footwear 10 using a corresponding feature provisioned by the app):
display information on the purchaser computer system relating to a product currently available for purchase ([Col 15 Ln 34-52] blockchain 60 may further be in communication with a hosted digital marketplace 64, forum, social platform, or the like (such as generally shown in FIG. 5—displayed on a smartphone 40). The digital marketplace 64 may represent a plurality of virtual objects 80 in such a manner that permits the organized trade or sale/purchase of the virtual objects between parties; [Fig. 5] depicts the marketplace showing multiple different shoes that may be purchased by the user… see [Col 14 Ln 14-37] computing system 30 is a decentralized blockchain platform);
allowing a user of the purchaser computer system to electronically purchase the product ([Col 15 Ln 37-41] The digital marketplace 64 may represent a plurality of virtual objects 80 in such a manner that permits the organized trade or sale/purchase of the virtual objects between parties; [Col 16 Ln 48-56] the user 11 may launch a dedicated mobile software application (“app”) or a web-based applet… the user 11 may purchase a pair of the footwear 10 using a corresponding feature provisioned by the app);
automatically creating a user account and linking the user account to the product in response to electronic purchasing of the product by the user ([Col 16 Ln 47-Col 17 Ln 22] after a user 11 completes a transaction for footwear, the method 100 continues to block 103 to determine of the user 11 has procured a digital blockchain locker… If the user 11 has not already acquired a digital blockchain locker, the method 100 continues to… set up a blockchain locker; [Col 17 Ln 23-35] Once the system confirms that the user has a suitable digital blockchain locker, the method 100 may automatically link the digital blockchain locker to a personal user account… this may require the remote host system 34 to retrieve a unique owner ID code associated with the purchasing party from an encrypted relational database… a unique physical shoe ID code associated with the purchased footwear 10 may be linked to the user’s personal account);
in response to electronic purchasing of the product by the user, receiving an NFT generated by an NFT processing platform in communication with the purchasing platform computer system, the NFT validating ownership by the user of the product ([Col 16 Ln 30-67] method 100 beings at terminal block 101 with an initialization procedure for generating a cryptographic digital asset… the user 11 may purchase a pair of the footwear 10 using a corresponding feature provisioned by the app… the host system 34 receives, e.g., from an online store transaction module or an approved third-party electronic payment system, a transaction confirmation to indicate a validated transfer of the footwear 10 to the user 11 has been completed; [Col 17 Ln 1-67] after receiving confirmation that a cryptographic digital asset has been authorized at block 109, the method 100 generates a cryptographic digital asset for the transacted article of footwear, comprising generating a unique, encrypted asset code with an address, a token, and a public and private key pair… host system 34 may transmit the token to a distributed blockchain ledger… see [Col 16 Ln 11-29] an improved method for generating collectible digital assets protected by cryptographic tokens is described at 100… the operations of the method are representative of an algorithm… executed, for example, by a resident or remote controller, central processing unit (CPU), control logic circuit, or other module or device or network of devices, to perform any or all of the above or below described functions; [Col 14 Ln 38-56] a corporate host system 68 may be in communication with the blockchain 60 for the purpose of provisioning/creating new digital assets… the host system 68 may provide one or more rules to the virtual object generator 62 to constrain the manner and style in which genomic information from the blockchain 60 is expressed in a visual form; [Col 18 Ln 5-32] The remote host system 34 may operate as a web server hosting a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) that is operable to translate the data stored in the encryption keys into a visual image that is displayed to the user 11)
linking the NFT with the user account, the NFT electronically accessible by the user ([Col 17 Ln 1-6] Method 100 continues to decision block 103 to determine if the user 11 has procured a cryptocurrency wallet or other similarly suitable digital blockchain locker that is operable, for example, to upload and maintain location and retrieval information for digital assets that are encrypted and stored in a decentralized manner; [Col 17 Ln 23-35] Once the system confirms that the user 11 has a suitable digital blockchain locker, the method 100 may automatically link, or prompt the user 11 to link, the digital blockchain locker to a personal user account (e.g., a NIKEPLUS® account profile)… At this time, a unique physical shoe ID code (CryptoKick Physical ID 50 of FIG. 2) associated with the purchased footwear 10 may be linked to the user's personal account); and
generating and storing information in a database relating to the user's account, the product, and the NFT in response to purchasing of the product by the user ([Col 8 Ln 54-67] upon scanning the shoe's UPC or UPID at a point-of-sale (POS) terminal during first purchase or directly associated with the product, a unique crypto-token and corresponding private key (“KickID”) are automatically generated and assigned to the user's blockchain locker (see FIG. 7); [Col 15 Ln 34-52] The digital marketplace 64 may represent a plurality of virtual objects 80 in such a manner that permits the organized trade or sale/purchase of the virtual objects between parties. Upon the closing of a sale, the digital marketplace 64 may update the blockchain 60 with the new ownership information; [Col 17 Ln 23-27] Once the system confirms that the user 11 has a suitable digital blockchain locker, the method 100 may automatically link, or prompt the user 11 to link, the digital blockchain locker to a personal user account (e.g., a NIKEPLUS® account profile)).
Regarding Claim 2, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon further discloses wherein the purchaser computer system comprises a mobile phone ([Col 13 Ln 27-33] Wireless data exchanges between the user 11 and remote computing nodes on the decentralized computing system 30 may be conducted directly, e.g., through direct communications between the host system 34/cloud computing system 36 and a user device 39 (e.g., the user's smartphone 40, smartwatch 42, or other suitable personal computing device)).
Regarding Claim 5, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon further discloses further comprising a Quick Response (QR) code scannable by the purchaser computer system, the QR code allowing access to the purchasing platform computer system for purchasing of the product ([Fig. 7][Col 21 Ln 9-28] a method of acquiring a digital collectable that may be linked or coordinated with the sale of a physical product… as shown in FIG. 7, the user 11 brings a device (i.e., smart phone device 40) in proximity to a physical product 200 that includes an identifier (UPID), such as a QR Code… This code may then be recognized by the phone 40… Following the identification/recognition of the UPID, the phone 40 may initiate the transfer and/or original provisioning of a digital asset 202 linked with that product 200 to the user's locker 204 that is in communication with a blockchain service/network 60… see [Col 19 Ln 7-10] The buyer may then scan the QR code using a smartphone digital camera through operation of a scan feature in the sneaker app, and transmit the requisite funds (e.g., 3 ETH) to the auction site).
Regarding Claim 6, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon further discloses wherein the purchasing platform computing system communicates with one or more of a vendor computer system or a point of sale computer system ([Col 16 Ln 47-60] Utilizing a portable electronic device 39, such as smartphone 40… the user 11 may launch a dedicated mobile software application… that collaborates with a server-class (backend or middleware) computer (e.g., remote host system 34) to communicate with the various peer devices on decentralized computing system 30… the user 11 may purchase a pair of the footwear 10 using a corresponding feature provisioned by the app. The user 11 enters personal information and a method of payment to complete the transaction).
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. The system of Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Andon further discloses A method for product purchases and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (Andon: [Col 17 Ln 56-67]). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 21, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon further discloses wherein the system validates transactions against a blockchain ([Col 14 Ln 38-56] Construction and storage of a digital asset blockchain enables networked computing devices to quickly and efficiently generate, validate and transact digital asset data; [Col 15 Ln 34-52] Upon the closing of a sale, the digital marketplace 64 may update the blockchain 60 with the new ownership information and facilitate the transfer of new of existing keys to the new asset holder).
Claim 24 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 21. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 21.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon in view of previously cited Harris (US 2009/0265234 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon does not explicitly disclose further comprising a voucher redeemable by the user, the voucher allowing access to the purchasing platform computer system for purchasing of the product.
Harris, on the other hand, discloses further comprising a voucher redeemable by the user, the voucher allowing access to the purchasing platform computer system for purchasing of the product ([0007] The consumer calls or accesses DRCB… and gives DRCB authorization to charge the account associated with the debit or credit card. The DRCB issues a digital certificate or processing card to the consumer. The digital certificate contains information to show that the consumer is entitled to a discount for that merchandise… a more permanent plastic card containing the same information as the digital certificate is mailed to the consumer by postal mail; [0024] A DRCB cardholder uses his/her card to allow purchases where discount coupons and/or rebates can be applied to their purchase at participating retailers; [0025] The DRCB card, similar to a bank debit card, holds the access code that connects a Point-of-Sale ("POS") to DRCB's data base in its computer, enables reconciling the coupon or rebate unique to that cardholder's account; [0026] Every POS system has the capability to read the magnetic stripe on back of the card, authorize reconciling the coupon or rebate information to the transaction and completing payment once the cardholder's PIN is recognized and a four digit approval code is inserted by the retail store's manager or cashier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Andon, further comprising a voucher redeemable by the user, the voucher allowing access to the purchasing platform computer system for purchasing of the product, as taught by Harris, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon, to include the teachings of Harris, in order to allow purchases where discount coupons and/or rebates can be applied at participating retailers, as well as track the location and amount paid for specific transactions (Harris, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, Andon and Harris teach the limitations of claim 3.
Andon does not explicitly disclose wherein the voucher comprises a voucher card redeemable by the user.
Harris, on the other hand, discloses wherein the voucher comprises a voucher card redeemable by the user ([0007] The DRCB issues a digital certificate or processing card to the consumer. The digital certificate contains information to show that the consumer is entitled to a discount for that merchandise…. a more permanent plastic card containing the same information as the digital certificate is mailed to the consumer by postal mail).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Andon, wherein the voucher comprises a voucher card redeemable by the user, as taught by Harris, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 9 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 10 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon in view of previously cited Winters (US 2001/0034635 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon does not explicitly disclose wherein the product is redeemable by the user as a pre-purchased gift.
Winters, on the other hand, discloses wherein the product (redemption award) is redeemable by the user as a pre-purchased gift ([0045] the LEDO provider website 118 contains on-screen buttons that are utilized for… buying new LEDOs 208, earning free LEDOs 210… shopping for goods/services that provide LEDO rewards 216, and redeeming LEDOs for goods and/or services from the LEDO provider's on-line catalog showroom 218; [0074] the user will be able to access the LEDO provider website's online catalog showroom. In step 1108, the user may browse for the individual redemption award product they wish to select for redemption. In step 1110, the user selects a redemption award product. In step 1112, the system will determine if the proper quantity and denominations of the user's LEDOs have been designated for redemption… In step 1118, the user selects the individual LEDOs they wish to turn in to redeem for the redemption award they selected; [0076] Once the redemption award and LEDOs selected for redemption have been identified, in step 1120, the user is provided an opportunity to review/confirm the redemption award transaction; [0077] in step 1126, the user's personal account is debited for the redeemed LEDOs. In step 1128, a fulfillment order is placed for the user so that the prize they selected may be fulfilled, either from an appropriate merchant or warehouse. In step 1130, an award confirmation is sent to the user by the appropriate merchant or warehouse to confirm availability, delivery date, etc… see [0037] LEDO is an acronym for “Limited Edition Digital Object”) (Examiner notes that, since the redemption award may be redeemed through the designation of LEDOs, which a user earns by shopping for other goods/services, the redemption award has been interpreted as a pre-purchased gift).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Andon, wherein the product is redeemable by the user as a pre-purchased gift, as taught by Winters, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon, to include the teachings of Harris, in order to provide an online program based on interactive digital collectibles that can be saved as redemption points, as well as recruit new users for a service, wherein users may receive compensation for using the system (Winters, [0002][0014]).
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 7. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 7.
Claims 22-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon in view of previously cited Withrow (US 11,830,003 B2).
Regarding Claim 22, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon does not explicitly disclose wherein two-factor authentication secures access to the system.
Withrow, on the other hand, discloses wherein two-factor authentication secures access to the system ([Col 18 Ln 33-46] a seller requests to induct their own items, block 940. The request may be made to a suitable authentication service. The service preferably validates identity of the seller, and sets up an account with secure login, and appropriate permissions, block 942. Procedures such as 2FA should be used, to prevent unauthorized tampering with the authentication database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Andon, wherein two-factor authentication secures access to the system, as taught by Withrow, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon, to include the teachings of Withrow, in order to combine authentication evets with other events and processes, sch as an authentication and a purchase, into a single process or event (Withrow, [Col 1 Ln 33-43]).
Regarding Claim 23, Andon teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Andon further discloses wherein the system communicates with one or more vendor sales or inventory management systems ([Col 16 Ln 47-67] during a communication session with the host system 34, the user 11 may purchase a pair of footwear 10 using a corresponding feature provisioned by a dedicated mobile software application… Upon completion of a validated payment, the host system 34 receives, e.g., from an online store transaction module or an approved third-party electronic payment system, a transaction confirmation);
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the system automatically provides notifications to product vendors with links to product transactions.
Withrow, on the other hand, discloses wherein the system automatically provides notifications to product vendors with links to product transactions ([Col 16 Ln 27-46] a purchaser may enter a seller’s account details, and the authentication service subsequently finds the matching vendor and an electronic catalog of seller products can be presented and purchased by the user. The service may send a reply message to the seller confirming the transaction, and update the associated database records) (Examiner notes that the confirmation message sent to the seller regarding the transaction is a notification that links the message to the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Andon, wherein the system automatically provides notifications to product vendors with links to product transactions, as taught by Withrow, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Claim 25 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 22. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 22.
Claim 26 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 23. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689