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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed December 23, 2025.
Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
Claims 11-12 are canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. First, Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards a judicial exception as the claim defines a particular method for managing NFT state through specific on-chain data structures, i.e., fractional ownership fields within an NFT) and concrete software architectures, i.e., server-managed private keys interacting with smart contracts. Examiner respectfully disagrees as using a contract to execute ownership transfer, using a private key managed by a third-party to execute ownership transfer, and facilitating fractional ownership transfer of an NFT by recording a fractional percentage of ownership of the NFT in a ledger, i.e., blockchain, are examples of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, such as commercial interactions as well as legal obligations. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that such subject matter fails to recite abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant contends that the claims are patent eligible as they recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Specifically, Applicant contends that that the claims recite a technical framework for fractional ownership and value-unit management by maintaining private keys for NFTs on behalf of owners, using the private keys to facilitate ownership transfers by updating ownership data fields, and updating fields corresponding to fractional ownership. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such subject matter, either individually or in combination with the other claim elements, serve to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Rather, using keys held on behalf of users to update ownership data fields and indicate fractional ownership of NFTs are examples of abstract ideas, e.g., Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities, instead of additional elements that could serve to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Further, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Here, the improvement appears to be directed towards improving liquidity of NFTs which is an improvement to an abstract idea, i.e., not an improvement in technology. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter because they recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. Specifically, Applicant contends that the claims do not recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional elements were determined to amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers rather than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Applicant also cites to Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner notes that Desjardins was in the context of training a machine learning model while the claims at issue here are directed towards using a blockchain, i.e., a ledger, to transfer ownership rights in an asset, i.e., NFT. Further, the amendments to the claims are not directed towards how the NFT/blockchain system maintains state. Rather, the blockchain is used as a ledger to maintain ownership interests and transfer of ownership interests in the NFT by recording ownership interests in the blockchain.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Examiner agrees that amendments (1), (2), and (3) on page 9 of the remarks filed December 23, 2205, are not disclosed by either Bell or Cella. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection has been entered due to those amendments.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Bell fails to disclose addition and subtraction of value units that are tied to the NFT itself, tracked as specific data fields of the NFT, and encoded on-chain via the NFT’s smart contract. Examiner respectfully disagrees because such language is not recited in the claim. While the claim recites maintaining an account of a value unit in the blockchain network, which Bell discloses as FT that are distributed to the sellers of the NFT, the claim fails to recite that the claimed value unit is part of a data field of the NFT or that it is encoded on-chain via the smart contract. Rather, what is encoded on the blockchain via a smart contract is ownership transfer. There is no mention of the value unit in connection with the smart contract. Further, fractional ownership data fields are also encoded into the blockchain, without a smart contract, but there is no indication that there is any sort of relationship between the fractional ownership data fields and the value unit. Therefore, Examiner suggests further amendments clarifying the relationship of the value unit to the NFT, smart contract, blockchain, and fractional ownership data fields.
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-10 and 13-16 are directed towards a process, claim 17 is directed towards a manufacture, and claims 18-20 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of accounting for fractional ownership transfer of an asset by recording specific data in a ledger. In particular, the claim recites interacting with a ledger system that includes contracts and stores data fields of assets, i.e., NFTS. The system also interacts with a plurality of end users to facilitate ownership transfer of the assets by using a contract of the ledger system to execute the ownership transfer and verifying the result of the transfer before recording it in the ledger. The system also uses a private key to update ownership transfer data fields of the asset. The process also adds or subtracts a value unit tied to the NFT and accounting for the value unit in the ledger. Ownership transfer is facilitated by maintaining an account of ownership transfer in the ledger and updating fractional ownership data fields of the asset in the ledger. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. 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).
interacting with a blockchain network having smart contracts and blockchain storing a plurality of NFTs, each NFT including one or more data fields encoded on the blockchain; and
interacting with a plurality of client computing devices;
for each NFT, facilitating ownership transfer of the NFT based on the interacting with the client computing devices by:
utilizing smart contract of the blockchain network to execute the ownership transfer and to verify an execution result prior to encoding the ownership transfer into the blockchain; and
using a private key maintained by the server on behalf of an owner of the NFT to update, and cause to be encoded on the blockchain, one or more ownership transfer data fields of the NFT: and
for each NFT, facilitating addition and subtraction of at least one value unit tied to the NFT based on the interacting with the client computing devices, including maintaining an accounting of the at least one value unit in the blockchain network;
wherein facilitating ownership transfer comprises: maintaining an accounting of the ownership transfer in the blockchain network; and
facilitating a fractional ownership transfer of at least some of the NFTs by updating and causing to be encoded on the blockchain, one or more fractional ownership data fields of those NFTs to indicate a fractional percentage of ownership.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of interacting with a blockchain network having smart contracts, client computing devices, and a server. However, these additional elements are used to implement the identified abstract ideas recited in the claim. In other words, these additional elements amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the claim recites the additional elements of interacting with a blockchain network having smart contracts, client computing devices, and a server. However, these additional elements are used to implement the identified abstract ideas recited in the claim. In other words, these additional elements amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 17: Claim 17 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. Claim 17 recites the following additional element:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon statements and instructions that, when executed by a processor of a server, configure the server to implement the method of claim 1.
However, the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas because it recites an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 18: Claim 18 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
a network adapter; and
NFT functionality circuitry coupled to the network adapter and configured to implement the method of claim 1.
However, the additional elements a network adapter and NFT functionality circuitry coupled to the network adapter fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as they recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-16 and 19-20: Claims 2-10, 13-16, and 19-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea that the value unit is a share, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea that the NFT is tied to media content that depicts a sports team and the shares are a virtual share of the sports team, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of determining a price of an NFT and shares based on performance of the sports team, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea that the value unit is an offering, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea that the media content is depicts an athlete and the offering is an offering from the athlete, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of determining a price of the NFT and offering based on supply and demand for the NFT and offering, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of maintaining an accounting of the value unit, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of maintaining an accounting of the value unit, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The additional element of performing this on a blockchain fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it is an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers in the blockchain technological environment.
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of maintaining private keys for the NFT on behalf of the owner and maintaining an accounting of the ownership transfer in a database, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of facilitating a swap of a first NFT against a second NFT based on a sports outcome, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea that the swap involves a fractional ownership bet, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of hosting an NFT marketplace to buy, sell, or swap NFTs, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of maintaining a book value for each NFT and redeeming an NFT for book value, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium. However, these additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas because they are instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers.
Claim 20 recites the additional element that the non-transitory computer readable medium includes a database for storing data in a centralized manner. However, this additional element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas because it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0274270 to Bell et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0287175 to Hill et al. and U.S. Patent No. 10,540,654 to James et al.
Per Claim 1: Bell discloses:
A method for execution by a server for providing additional functionality for NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), comprising: (see Bell at ¶ 7: This disclosure can be construed as an information processing device, a system, a method executed by a computer, or a program executed by a computer.)
interacting with a blockchain network having [[smart contracts]] and blockchain storing a plurality of NFTs, each NFT including one or more data fields encoded on the blockchain; and (see Bell at ¶ 25: Also, the system according to the present embodiment is connected to a first data management system 5, a second data management system 6, and a blockchain 7. See also ¶ 30: The blockchain 7 is used for registering data in order to issue and trade NFTs and FTs. See also ¶¶ 52-57: FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of items that can be used for metadata and token data in the present embodiment, including the token data listed below. Note that the following examples are envisioned for a token in the form of a collectible, in which case multiple NFTs are issued for one piece of content. tokenID (token ID) collectibleID (collectible ID) serialNumber (serial number, which allows multiple NFTs linked with one piece of content to be issued by setting different serial numbers along with one collectible ID for one piece of content) maxTokens (maximum number of NFTs issued for one collectible) tokenMetadataURI (URI for referencing metadata from an issued NFT; includes metadata CID))
interacting with a plurality of client computing devices; (see Bell at ¶ 25: The system according to the present embodiment includes an information processing device 1 and a plurality of user terminals 9, which can communicate with each other by being connected to a network.)
for each NFT, facilitating ownership transfer of the NFT based on the interacting with the client computing devices by: (see Bell at ¶ 40: The NFT management unit 32 transfers an NFT corresponding to a product acquired by the user to that user’s wallet.)
for each NFT, facilitating addition and subtraction of at least one value unit tied to the NFT based on the interacting with the client computing devices, including maintaining an accounting of the at least one value unit in the blockchain network; (see Bell at ¶ 42: When a user is to receive at least part of a payment value, the FT management unit 34 adds (records in the blockchain 7), to the wallet of that user, an amount of FT that corresponds to the amount of value that the user is to receive, out of the total value of the FT issued by the FT issuing unit 33. More specifically, the FT management unit 34 performs processing such that a first portion of the issued FT is added to the wallet of the product seller, a second portion is added to the wallet of the system administrator or transitioned to an unusable state (so-called cryptocurrency coin burning or cryptocurrency coin flagging), and a third portion is added to the wallet of the right holder of the product (the IP holder, which is not limited to being the business that made the primary sale of the product, and may also include the individual who has a copyright or a right of likeness, for example).)
wherein facilitating ownership transfer comprises: maintaining an accounting of the ownership transfer in the blockchain network; and (see Bell at ¶ 77: Along with the primary sales processing, the NFT management unit 32 transfers the NFT related to the purchased product from the seller’s wallet to the purchaser’s wallet.
However, Bell fails to disclose but Hill, an analogous art of fractional NFT ownership, discloses:
utilizing smart contract of the blockchain network to execute the ownership transfer and to verify an execution result prior to encoding the ownership transfer into the blockchain; and (see Hill at ¶ 36: Functions of the smart contract 402 may be available to be called only by authorized individuals (e.g., “whitelisted addresses”). Individuals may be authorized by whitelisting a wallet address associated with the individual. For example, an officer of the investment fund may control an address authorized to issue new tokens to raise more capital. This officer could call the issueToken( ) function of the smart contract 402 to permit issuance of the token. See also ¶ 40: When the decentralized investment fund 502 receives the signed message 512, ownership of sufficient funds may be verified by checking the balance of the account on a copy of the shared ledger at 514.)
facilitating a fractional ownership transfer of at least some of the NFTs by updating and causing to be encoded on the blockchain, one or more fractional ownership data fields of those NFTs to indicate a fractional percentage of ownership. (see Hill at ¶ 58: Fractional non-fungible token ownership may be handled in a smart contract by, for example, replacing an owner field of a list with a cardinality of one with no weighting parameter to a list of owners with relative weights.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell so that a smart contract is used to facilitate ownership transfers using the techniques disclosed in Hill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable multiple owners of a single NFT, each of which could sell their ownership rights separately from the other owners.
However, the combination of Bell and Hill fails to disclose but James, an analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
using a private key maintained by the server on behalf of an owner of the NFT to update, and cause to be encoded on the blockchain, one or more ownership transfer data fields of the NFT: and (see James at 118:48-58: In embodiments, the digital wallet may be a custodial digital wallet. The custodial digital wallet may be segregated, that is, unique to a particular customer or commingled, including digital assets of multiple customers. In such an embodiment, the custodian holds digital assets in the custodial wallet for the benefit of its customers. The custodian would hold the private key or private keys/key segments to each custodial wallet whether it be segregated or commingled. Transactions may be made between different custodial wallets or between custodial wallets and exchange customer wallets in the manner described above. See also 56:66-57:10: In step 1704F, the digital asset exchange computer system may receive a second electronic deposit request form the first user device. In embodiments, the second electronic deposit request may comprise at least: (1) a first amount of stable value digital asset tokens to be deposited; (2) a designated public address of the first user on the underlying blockchain from which the first amount of stable value digital asset tokens will be transferred; and (3) a digital signature based on a designated private key of the first user. In embodiments, the designated private key of the first user is mathematically related to the designated public address of the first user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell so that a custodial wallet is used to hold and transfer ownership of NFTs using the techniques disclosed in James. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to more conveniently hold and transfer ownership stake in NFTs.
Per Claim 17: The combination of Bell, Hill, and James discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement the method of claim 1, which Bell discloses (see Bell at ¶ 7: This disclosure can be construed as an information processing device, a system, a method executed by a computer, or a program executed by a computer.)
Per Claim 18: The combination of Bell, Hill, and James discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. Bell further discloses:
A server configured to provide additional functionality for NFTs (Non- Fungible Tokens), comprising: a network adapter; and NFT functionality circuitry coupled to the network adapter and configured to implement the method of claim 1. (see Bell ¶ 26: The information processing device 1 is a computer that includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 12, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 13, a storage device 14 such as an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable and Programmable Read Only Memory) or an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), a communication unit 15 such as an NIC (Network Interface Card), and the like.)
Per Claim 19: The combination of Bell, Hill, and James discloses the subject matter of claim 18, from which claim 19 depends. Bell further discloses:
the NFT functionality circuitry comprises a processor; and the server further comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon statements and instructions that, when executed by the processor, configures the processor as the NFT functionality circuitry. (see Bell ¶ 26: The information processing device 1 is a computer that includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 12, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 13, a storage device 14 such as an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable and Programmable Read Only Memory) or an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), a communication unit 15 such as an NIC (Network Interface Card), and the like.)
Per Claim 20: The combination of Bell, Hill, and James discloses the subject matter of claim 19, from which claim 20 depends. Bell further discloses:
wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises a database for storing NFT information in a centralized manner. (see Bell at ¶ 31: Programs recorded in the storage device 14 are read out to the RAM 13 and executed by the CPU 11 to control pieces of hardware provided in the information processing device 1, and thus the information processing device 1 functions as an information processing device that includes a content identifier generation unit 21, a hash value acquisition unit 22, a metadata generation unit 23, a metadata adding unit 24, a metadata identifier acquisition unit 25, an NFT issuing unit 26, a content data adding unit 27, a payment accepting unit 31, an NFT management unit 32, an FT issuing unit 33, an FT management unit 34, a value reception confirmation unit 35, and a point provision unit 36.)
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, Hill, and James as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0274269 to Conley et al.
Per Claim 2: The combination of Bell, Hill, and James discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. However, the combination of Bell, Hill, and James fails to disclose but Conley, an analogous art of NFTs, discloses:
wherein, for at least a first subset of the NFTs, the at least one value unit comprises shares associated with the NFT. (see Conley at ¶ 231: In embodiments, certified token technology may be further generalized to transfers of physical assets or shares that exist off-chain but are recorded on blockchain as tokenized assets, such as car titles, stocks, or other official documents.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell so that the content associated with the NFT is a stock as disclosed in Conley. The claimed invention would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one piece of data for another piece of data with predictable results.
Per Claim 3: The combination of Bell, Hill, James, and Conley discloses the subject matter of claim 2, from which claim 3 depends. Bell further discloses:
wherein, for each NFT of the first subset, the NFT is tied to media content that depicts a sports team, and (see Bell at ¶ 71: Also, metadata and/or token data may further include information on the content provider, information on a performer related to the content, credit information related to intellectual property rights (copyrights, trademark rights, rights of performers, etc.) for the content, group information related to the content, date/time information related to the content, information on a location related to the content (performance venue or the like; may also include the metaverse or a distributed performance), event information related to the content (series or series name of a sports game, performance name, concept, etc.), or the like. Here, examples of performers include actors and musicians, athletes in sports-related content, and members in singer/band content, and examples of groups include team names in sports-related content, group names in singer content, and group names in band content, and examples of the date/time include the date and time of the release of content and the date and time of the recording of content.)
However, the combination of Bell, Hill, and James fails to disclose but Conley discloses:
the shares associated with the NFT are virtual shares of that sports team. (see Conley at ¶ 231: In embodiments, certified token technology may be further generalized to transfers of physical assets or shares that exist off-chain but are recorded on blockchain as tokenized assets, such as car titles, stocks, or other official documents.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell so that the shares of a sports as disclosed in Conley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to give fans an ownership stake in a favored sports team.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0366475 discloses a method of tokenization and use of assets, comprising: a) registering at least one asset on a distributed ledger; b) assigning the at least one asset a fungible or non-fungible token with a public key; c) reading information about the at least one asset using a reading device; d) verifying ownership of the at least one asset using a private key which matches the public key; and, e) performing a transaction with the at least one asset.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0005284 discloses systems and methods are described for implementing blockchain-based content engagement platforms. In several embodiments, the content engagement platform includes a registry service which enables verified content creators to mint Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). In many embodiments, media wallet applications enable users to securely store NFTs and/or other tokens on their devices. In a number of embodiments, the media wallet applications collect data concerning media consumed by users and aggregate the media consumption data in a permissioned analytics blockchain. The manner in which the media consumption data is stored can enable users to control permission to access their personal data. In one embodiment, a media wallet is provided that can securely store NFTs, display a user interface through which user instructions concerning data access permissions are received, and cause media consumption data to be written to at least one immutable ledger in conjunction with a set of data access permissions.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0334752 discloses an apparatus, computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented method for configuring computing systems to facilitate decentralized asset management for individual assets and composite assets such as funds. Implementations include smart contract interfaces to link fungible tokens to non-fungible asset tokens to decouple securities transaction logic and corporate functions from asset management to facilitate code reuse. Additionally, the embodied process uses token nesting to enable homogeneous or heterogeneous assets to be combined into a fund structure, and further for funds to be composed into fund of fund models. The flexible structure enables automation of fund management and is designed to facilitate broad investor access to innovative asset management strategies that leverage the disclosed structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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 at (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 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699