DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 12/19/2025.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments/Comments
Applicant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the present application do not recite human decision-making, interpersonal relationships, or social interactions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s limitation recites “in response to generating the private side and based on authentication of the one or more users, receive a first input from a user from amongst the one or more users, the first input configured to generate a public side of the NFT digital wallet having a public address”. This limitation shows related and direct behavioral interactions, which are also supported by Applicant’s specification that explains “Therefore, a need exists to develop systems, methods and the like that would provide for a means by which an NFT digital wallet can act as a gateway for incoming resource-related events, such that user can accept or reject any and all incoming resource-related events.” It is unclear, how the claims are not related to managing human interactions/relationships.
Second, the additional claim elements do not integrate judicial exception into a practical application. These elements are recited at a high level of generality. They are not recited in the claim in a manner that captures technical improvements to computer technology or realm as argued. Instead, these additional elements merely carry out generic computer functions such as authenticating a user; generating a NFT digital wallet; receiving input from a user; etc. Each of the additional elements/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step-2B, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained for the reasons indicated below.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claim 1 is dawn to system claim; claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory computer program product claim; and claim 15 is drawn a method claim, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 (claims 8 and 15 are similar in scope):
a first computing platform including a first memory and one or more first processing devices in communication with the first memory, wherein the first memory stores an NFT digital wallet generator executable by at least one of the one or more first processing devices and configured to:
authenticate at least one of one or more users using an NFT that serves as verified identity for the one or more users,
in response to authenticating the at least one of the one or more users, generate a private side of a NFT digital wallet having a private address,
in response to generating the private side and based on authentication of the one or more users, receive a first input from a user from amongst the one or more users, the first input configured to generate a public side of the NFT digital wallet having a public address, and
receive second inputs from the user that define a set of rules for the NFT digital wallet to provide gateway functionality for receiving resource-related events using the public address and private address; and
a second computing platform including a second memory and one or more second processing devices in communication with the second memory, wherein the second memory stores a public address monitoring engine executable by at least one of the one or more second processing devices and configured to:
monitor for occurrence of public exposure of the public address, and
in response to the monitoring determining an occurrence of public exposure of the public address, direct the NFT to replace the public address with a new public address without having to replace the private address.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people by following rules or instructions, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The abstract idea, recited above, includes: authenticate at least one of one or more users using an NFT that serves as verified identity for the one or more users; generate a private side of a NFT digital wallet having a private address; receive a first input from a user from amongst the one or more users, the first input configured to generate a public side of the NFT digital wallet having a public address, and receive second inputs from the user that define a set of rules for the NFT digital wallet to provide gateway functionality for receiving resource-related events using the public address and private address... monitor for occurrence of public exposure of the public address, and …. direct the NFT to replace the public address with a new public address without having to replace the private address. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing relationships by following rules, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing personal interactions between people by following rules or instructions, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (first/second computing platforms including memory and one or more processing devices; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; NFT digital wallets having public/private address) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of respective claim 1, 8, and 15 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 includes steps of managing resource-related event; claim 3 includes applying rules to incoming resource-related events; claim 4 includes receiving third user inputs to select for validation; claim 5 includes re-authenticating the user; and claim 7 includes implement machine learning models to predict public events; etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in the respective claim 1. Other dependent claims 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are similar in scope to claims 2-5 and 7, thus are rejected for the same reasons stated above.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Reasons for Allowance Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each contains allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of records are Jakobsson et al. (US20230281606A1); and Bartfai-Walcott et al. (US20240095315A1. The closest prior arts, fail to teach or suggest, the ordered combination and in the context of nft wallet, “a second computing platform including a second memory and one or more second processing devices in communication with the second memory, wherein the second memory stores a public address monitoring engine executable by at least one of the one or more second processing devices and configured to: monitor for occurrence of public exposure of the public address, and in response to the monitoring determining an occurrence of public exposure of the public address, direct the NFT to replace the public address with a new public address without having to replace the private address.”
Claims 7, 14, and 20 each also contains allowable subject matter. The closest prior arts, fail to teach or suggest, the ordered combination and in the context of nft wallet; monitor for occurrence of public events implementing the public address,
in response to the monitoring determining an occurrence of one or more public events implementing the public address, implement machine learning models to predict that the one or more public events will lead to an occurrence of public exposure of the public address, and in response to predicting that the one or more public events will lead to the occurrence of public exposure of the public address, direct the NFT to automatically replace the public address with a new public address without having to replace the private address.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 5/4/2026
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights