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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 2. Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. PRIVATE Claims 8-20 are not sufficiently precise due to the combining of two separate statutory classes ( apparatus and process in claims 8-14 and computer program product and method in claims 15-20 ) of invention in a single claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 1. 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. 2. Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 35 USC 101 requires that in order to be patentable the invention must be a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" (emphasis added). 3. The applicants claims mentioned above are intended to embrace or overlap two different statutory classes of invention as set forth in 35 USC 101. Claims 8 and 15 and its dependent claims recites “ a hybrid system /process ” and “hybrid computer program product/process” comprising two statutory classes of invention in a single claim . The claim 8 begin by discussing an system , but subsequently the claims then deal with performing a method (the steps) by the processor ; and Claim 15 begin by discussing an computer program product , but subsequently the claims then deal with performing a method (see above rejection of claims under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for specific details regarding this issue). "A claim of this type is precluded by the express language of 35 USC 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only", Ex parte Lyell (17 USPQ2d 1548). 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. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices ; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself ; and mathematical relationships/formulas . Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , 573 U.S. ____ (2014). In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to system and method for recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider . The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below: Analysis: Step 1 : Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03. Claim 1 is directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, of updating a database which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES ). Claim 8 is directed to a system comprising at least a memory device and a processor, for transferring NFTs. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES ). Claim 1 5 is directed to a computer program product , which is a manufacture. The claim, thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES ). Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite plurality of steps “ generating a unique non- fungible token (NFT), receiving an indication from the user to modify the event , identifying additional NFT owners and establishing a blockchain-based messaging session . ” The limitations of “ generating a unique non-fungible token (NFT), receiving an indication from the user to modify the event , identifying additional NFT owners and establishing a blockchain-based messaging session ” , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc., v. First Choice Loan Servcs with computer implemented method and system for anonymous shopping loan packages but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ memory device and a processor ,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “ one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories ” language, “ generating NFT, identifying additional NFT owners establishing a messaging session ” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the recited steps. The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas ( YES ). Step 2A - Prong 2 : Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor performing “ responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider ” in transferring NFTs . ” The processor in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider . The processor/computing device of the exchange recited without further details that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). An evaluation of whether limitations in Prong1 are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering such as responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception in recoding the transfer of NFTs . The computing device is also an additional element which is configured to carry out the limitations i.e ., it is the tool that is used in steps described in Prong 1. But the computing device is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception ( Step 2A: NO ). Step 2B : Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. , whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 , there are two additional elements. The first is the processor , which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the computing device is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of “ responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider ” in transferring NFTs , which as explained previously is extra-solution activity ” , which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a computing device being configured to recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain is mere data gathering and execute recording that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. The claimed additional elements of responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider ” in transferring NFTs , which as explained previously is extra-solution activity ” is implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (see Fig. 1 : paragraph [0016-0030]) . Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional . The recitation of computer component with mere instruction to implement an abstract idea would not impart patent eligibility and claiming the improved speed or effi ciency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer would not provide a sufficient inventive concept (see Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.) , 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Lending Tree v. Zillow, July 25, 2016, page 10-11 ). Further, automating conventional activities using generic technol ogy does not amount to an inventive concept ( See Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2358) as these simply describes "automation of a mathematical formula/relationship through use of generic-computer computer function (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 788, F.3d at 1363 ). Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. ( NO ). Dependent Claims: Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2- 7, 9-14 and 16-20 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. As per dependent claims, these claims related to “NFT as key, peer to peer messaging, transferring information associated to NFTs, validating transferred NFTs, including metadata in NFTs and describing information associated event,” which appear to be a mental process using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea t hat are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent clai ms . Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible (NO). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 non - obviousness. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., U.S. Pub No. 11,568,394 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Kurian et al., U.S. Pub No. 2023/0188357 (reference B in attached PTO-892). As per claim 1 , Song et al. teach a processor-implemented method, the method comprising: generating, in response to a user registering an event with a provider, a unique non-fungible token (NFT), wherein the NFT includes information associated with the event recorded on a blockchain (see abstract ; Fig. 1, NFT Platform Server (110), Blockchain Network (200), Node (210); Fig. 2, Step S01: column 8, lines 22-40 ; where specific NFT is issued/generated based user registered or limited with supported access to specific node based on time-context data as selected by the user); responsive to receiving an indication from the user to modify the event (see Fig. 3 , Time Slots: January 1, 2, 3 and 4: Issuable: column 8, lines 61-67; where user modify or select another time range or slot for an event); identifying additional NFT owners that the user is permitted to communicate with over a blockchain-based messaging protocol, wherein the additional NFT owners are identified based on a set of provider criteria associated with the NFT (see Fig. 6, Step S03; column 11, lines 56-67 t o column 1-38; where additional NFT seller or buyers are identified and matched to communicated based selected and available time slots as shown in Fig. 3 and 4 ); wherein the blockchain-based messaging session allows for transferring of NFTs generated for respective events with the provider (see abstract ; Fig. 1, NFT Platform Server (110), Blockchain Network (200): column 12, lines 39-59: where NFT ownership is transferred based on select time slot event and specific meta data NFT token is updated accordingly ); Song et al. do not teach establishing a blockchain-based messaging session with the user and one or more of the permitted additional NFT owners, responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider . Kurian et al. teach establishing a blockchain-based messaging session with the user and one or more of the permitted additional NFT owners, responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider (see abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3 : paragraph [0014, 0021, 0088, 0086-0092]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow establishing a blockchain-based messaging session with the user and one or more of the permitted additional NFT owners, responsive to the user and an additional NFT owner within the permitted additional NFT owners agreeing to transfer NFTs, recording the transferred NFTs on the blockchain without confirmation from the provider to Song et al. because Kurian et al. teach including above features would enable to exchange non-fungible based on authenticating peer-to-peer exchange (see abstract, paragraph [0001])). As per claim 2 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. further teach t he method, wherein the NFT allows a user wallet or the NFT to act as a private key to message other NFT owners via the blockchain-based messaging protocol (see abstract, Fig. 1, NFT Platform Server (100): Communication Unit (11), Blockchain Network (200), User Nodes (210): column 7, lines 58-67 and column 8, lines 22-27; where NFT for specific time slot acts as private key to communicate with plurality of user nodes in the Blockchain Network). As per claim 3 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. do not teach the blockchain-based messaging session is part of a peer-to-peer market. Kurian et al. teach the blockchain-based messaging session is part of a peer-to-peer market (see abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3: paragraph [0014, 0021, 0088, 0086-0092]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the blockchain-based messaging session is part of a peer-to-peer market to Song et al. because Kurian et al. teach including above features would enable to exchange non-fungible based on authenticating peer-to-peer exchange (see abstract, paragraph [0001])). As per claim 4 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. further teach t he method, wherein information associated with transferred NFTs is communicated to a provider network after the NFT transfer is validated by the blockchain (abstract, column 12, lines 39-59; where NFT ownership validated As per claim 5 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. further teach t he method, wherein recording the transferred NFTs further comprises: validating the transferred NFTs; and transmitting information about the recordation and the validation to a watcher node (see abstract; Fig. 1, NFT Platform Server (100), Blockchain (200), Blockchain Node (210): column 7, lines 58-67; Fig. 6: column 11, lines 56-67 to column 12, lines 1-22; where transferred NFT token is validated and updated in the block chain node). As per claim 6 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. further teach t he method, wherein the NFT includes metadata, embedded upon the generation and according to direction by the provider, that establishes specific criteria for NFT exchanges between owners on either primary exchanges or secondary exchanges (see abstract Figs. 3 and 4: column 10, lines 8-40; where NFT includes metadata is associated with time slot based on matching another user is matched for exchanges between users) . As per claim 7 , Song et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Song et al. further teach t he method, wherein information associated with the event is selected from a group consisting of an event time , a provider name, services to be rendered during the event, and a QR code link (see abstract, Fig. 3 and 4) . As per claim 8 , Song et al. teach a computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (see Fig. 1, Memory (115), Processor (120)) , wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising steps as described in the claim 1 above. As per claims 9-14 , Song et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Claims 9-14 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2-7 as described above. As per claim 1 5 , Song et al. teach a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium (see Fig. 1, Memory (115), Processor (120)) , the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method , the method comprising steps as described in the claim 1 above. As per claims 1 6 -20 , Song et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Claims 1 6 -20 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2-6 as described above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon: Richter (U.S. Patent No. 12,039,464 ) teach es creating NFTs for future use experiences Kim et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,314,450 ) teach executing NFT-based software by loading metadata. Hardgrave et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2022/0108232 ) teach NFT and smart contract in hotel reservation (paragraph [0054]) . Jurat et al. (U,S. Pub No. 2024/0070306 ) teach blockchain-based NFT token authentication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1374 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00AM-5:00PM . 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1836 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. Respectfully submitted, /BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 03/ 20 /2026