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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 14 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 17 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 14, and 17 (claim 1 being representative) is:
storing warranty information of the item in a data storage area;
detecting an indication of a sale of a warranty for the item, the indication of the sale including: (i) an indicator of an owner of the item, (ii) an identifier of the item, and (iii) an indicator of the warranty information associated with a warranty for the item;
a warranty, wherein the warranty: (a) is owned by the owner of the item, (b) identifies the item, and (c) identifies the warranty information of the item, wherein: (i) the warranty identifies the item, and identifies the warranty information of the item by referencing a link to the data storage area: (a) not on the warranty NFT, and (ii) the data storage area is configured to store the identifier of the item, and the indicator of the warranty information of the item.
The abstract idea steps italicized above constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers commercial activities, since it describes managing the warranty for an item, including when ownership of said item has been transferred. This is supported by paragraph 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to evaluating or validating requests, and using identifiers, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraph 0030 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: A computer-implemented method for non- fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, comprising; via one or more processors; minting, via the one or more processors, an NFT; referenced by at least one additional NFT; adding, via the one or more processors, the minted warranty NFT to a digital wallet associated with the owner of the item.
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements: A computer system for non-fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, the computer system comprising one or more processors configured to; mint an NFT; referenced by at least one additional NFT; add the minted NFT to a digital wallet associated with the owner of the item.
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements: A computing device for non-fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, the computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories; the one or more memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to; mint an NFT; referenced by at least one additional NFT; add the minted NFT to a digital wallet associated with the owner of the item.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraph [0176] and [0182] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well: Claims 2 and 18 include further additional elements with additional description: transfer the warranty NFT to a digital wallet. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 3, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claim 4 includes further additional elements with additional description: the sale of the item occurred via a personal electronic device associated with the owner; via a software package associated with a provider of warranty NFTs executing on the personal electronic device; wherein the software package is a public application programming interface (API), a browser plugin or extension, or a standalone application. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 5 includes further additional elements with additional description: via a point-of-sale device; from a computing system associated with the vender. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 11 includes further additional elements with additional description: to a distributed ledger associated with the minted warranty NFT; self-execute. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlev (US 20220300950) in view of Quigley (US 20220351195).
Claims 1, 14, and 17
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, Yakovlev discloses:
(claim 1) A computer-implemented method for non- fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, comprising {“[T]he systems and methods of the present invention can be imbued with product, purchase, and even promotional information, which may be securely and reliably transferred from one owner to another person or entity or, if desired, co-owned” (paragraph 0007). “To achieve the foregoing, the following are brief summaries of the inventive systems and processes that electronically create proof of purchase and ownership using non-fungible electronic cryptographic NFT tokens in accordance with the present invention.” (paragraph 0013)}
(claim 14) A computer system for non-fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, the computer system comprising one or more processors configured to {“The present invention also has been described as carrying out certain processes or steps. Such processes or steps are carried out by appropriate computers, computing devices, electronic devices, processors or other known components capable of carrying out those processes or steps. Hence, even if structural devices are not always mentioned within each of the various embodiments presented herein, the foregoing mentioned structural devices, such as a processor, computer, computing system, electronic device, etc., represent the structures that may be used in the present invention.” (paragraph 0043). “To achieve the foregoing, the following are brief summaries of the inventive systems and processes that electronically create proof of purchase and ownership using non-fungible electronic cryptographic NFT tokens in accordance with the present invention.” (paragraph 0013)}
(claim 17) A computing device for non-fungible token (NFT)-based provision of a warranty of an item, the computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories {“The present invention also has been described as carrying out certain processes or steps. Such processes or steps are carried out by appropriate computers, computing devices, electronic devices, processors or other known components capable of carrying out those processes or steps. Hence, even if structural devices are not always mentioned within each of the various embodiments presented herein, the foregoing mentioned structural devices, such as a processor, computer, computing system, electronic device, etc., represent the structures that may be used in the present invention.” (paragraph 0043). “To achieve the foregoing, the following are brief summaries of the inventive systems and processes that electronically create proof of purchase and ownership using non-fungible electronic cryptographic NFT tokens in accordance with the present invention.” (paragraph 0013)} the one or more memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: {“Computer, computing devices and electronic devices employ one or more processors configured to execute software instructions that is/are stored on a tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” (paragraph 0042).}
detecting, via one or more processors, an indication of a sale of a warranty for the item, the indication of the sale including: (i) an indicator of an owner of the item, (ii) an identifier of the item, and (iii) an indicator of the warranty information associated with a warranty for the item; {Upon a completed purchase, metadata is detected by the system and includes information about the owner, an identifier of the item (i.e., SKU, product ID, serial number), and information related to a warranty associated with the purchased item. (paragraphs 0053, 0060, 0071, 0092, 0100, 104).}
adding, via the one or more processors, the minted warranty NFT to a digital wallet associated with the owner of the item. {The system adds a minted NFT (i.e., purchase order metadata including warranties) to a digital wallet associated with the owner by means of minter application (paragraphs 0056, 0072, 0076, 104).}
Yakovlev does not disclose, however, Quigley, in a similar field of endeavor directed to provide a trustless or substantially trustless ecosystem for minting, crafting, and unboxing digital tokens, teaches:
storing, via one or more processors, warranty information of the item in a data storage area; {The system supports storing NFTs data in a data storage area, including token information within smart contracts and external storage. [0534] – [0536], [0552] – [0553]}
minting, via the one or more processors, a warranty NFT, wherein the warranty NFT: (a) is owned by the owner of the item, (b) identifies the item, and (c) identifies the warranty information of the item, wherein: (i) the warranty NFT identifies the item, and identifies the warranty information of the item by referencing a link to the data storage area: (a) not on the warranty NFT, and (b) referenced by at least one additional NFT, and (ii) the data storage area is configured to store the identifier of the item, and the indicator of the warranty information of the item; and {The system supports minting, via a minting smart contract, a NFT that is assigned to a user account (i.e., owned by the user), where the NFT includes a unique identifier identifying the token and includes links to externally stored data assets, such that the NFT identifies associated information via a referenced data storage area external to the NFT. Templates and schemas may be reused across multiple NFTs (i.e., multiple NFTs reference a common external data storage structure storing token information). [0534], [0536], [0553], [0597]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the blockchain-based process for storing and manipulating physical goods product purchase information features of Yakovlev to include the NFT creation and management features of Quigley to improve flexibility around all facets of a transaction including, but not limited to, purchase selection, payment, transfer of possession, and location and timing of delivery in a virtual environment. (See paragraph 0003 of Quigley).
Claims 2 and 18
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
detecting, via the one or more processors, a transfer request indicating that ownership of the item is to be transferred to a new owner; {The system includes functionality for transferring NFT ownership from one wallet to another, and the minting and transfer operations are triggered by events such as order completion, resale, or downstream assignment (paragraphs 0051, 0062, 0079). Entities in the chain of custody can initiate metadata updates or ownership changes by asserting control of the token and interacting with the system (paragraph 0062).}
validating, via the one or more processors, the transfer request; and {The system uses customer information to identify and authenticate the current owner prior to executing a transfer (paragraphs 0071-0077, 0082-0084). In some instances, SMS verification or private key validation is required before assigning or transferring ownership of the NFT to another wallet (paragraphs 0077, 0079, 0087).}
in response to the validation, transferring, via the one or more processors, the warranty NFT to a digital wallet associated with the new owner. {After verifying the requester’s identity using phone number, email, or private key (paragraphs 0076-0079), the system either locates an existing wallet or generates a new one for the recipient (paragraph 0076, 0080). Upon successful validation, the system transfers proof of purchase NFT (including warranty information) from the current owner’s wallet (or a pending wallet) to the new owner’s wallet (paragraph 0079).}
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
wherein the validating comprises authenticating the transfer request based upon a digital signature of: (i) a requester of the transfer, and/or (ii) the new owner. {The system uses private key based authentication, including wallet’s signature, to verify control over a wallet address before permitting operations such as transfer of an NFT (i.e., recipient’s association with the wallet) (paragraphs 0056, 0079, 0082, 0088).}
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
the sale of the item occurred via a personal electronic device associated with the owner; {The system supports ecommerce transactions where the customer uses a web browser or app on a personal device to purchase goods (paragraphs 0068, 0112).}
Claims 6, 15, and 19
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 19, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
wherein the identifier of the item includes serial number information, a universal product code (UPC), batch and/or lot information, bar code information, and/or quick response (QR) code information. {The metadata associated with the purchased good includes “serial number (or other authenticating signature that can be physically stored in or within an item)” (paragraph 0053).}
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
receiving, via the one or more processors and from a third party, a request to view the warranty information; {The system enables third parties to access certain data stored in the NFT by generating a key token that grants decryption access to the information stored on the purchase token (paragraph 0060). Different entities in the chain of ownership may access selective portions of the token metadata, including warranty related information (paragraph 0104).}
validating, via the one or more processors, the request; and {The system uses key tokens to grant or restrict access to encrypted metadata (i.e., validates a request to access information) stored on the NFT (paragraph 0060).}
in response to validating the request, providing, via the one or more processors, the warranty information to the third party. {Once the information is verified, different entities in the chain of ownership may access selective portions of the token or sub-tokens metadata, including warranty related information (paragraph 0104).}
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
validating, via the one or more processors, that the owner provided an access right that enables the third party to view the warranty information. {The system can generate a key token to allow third party access to data stored on the NFT, this access being granted by the owner (paragraph 0060).}
Claims 16 and 20
Regarding claims 16 and 20, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
wherein the indication of the sale is produced by a personal electronic device associated with the owner in response to a detection of a bar code, and/or a quick response (QR) code. {A customer device may initiate the minting of a purchase token by providing identifying information (e.g., order number) following a purchase event (i.e., capture of purchase data to generate a sale indication) (paragraphs 0051-0055).}
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley, in further view of Rodriguez (US 20220284441).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
the sale of the item occurred via a point-of-sale device at a retail location of a vender of the item; and {Figs. 7B and 7C describe an in-store purchase scenario which is completed via a POS infrastructure (paragraphs 0115-0118).}
detecting the indication of the sale comprises: detecting, from a computing system associated with the vender, an indication of a purchase of the item, the indication of the purchase including an identifier of the owner; {The vendor’s system generates a completed order notification containing metadata about the purchase, which is transmitted via an API to the minter application (paragraphs 0051, 0056). This metadata includes information identifying the customer (paragraphs 0071, 0075, 0093).}
based upon the identifier, identifying contact information associated with the owner of the item; and {When the purchase metadata is received, the system uses an identifier (e.g., phone number, email address) to locate or generate the purchaser’s wallet (paragraphs 0071, 0075-0076, 0114).}
while the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
based upon the contact information, transmitting a warranty offer for the item to the owner of the item.
However, Rodriguez, in a similar field of endeavor directed to retrieving warranty information and providing a notification regarding a product purchased by a user, teaches:
based upon the contact information, transmitting a warranty offer for the item to the owner of the item {“[N]otification 450 may include an offer for the user to buy an extended warranty for the purchased item.” (paragraph 0038) This transmission is conditioned on retrieved transaction and contact data tied to the user’s purchase behavior (paragraphs 0036, 0041-0043).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley to include the automatic warranty tracking features of Rodriguez, to improve the user's experience with product warranties by providing a notification to the user when a warranty on a product they have purchased is near the expiration date. (see paragraph 0003 of Rodriguez).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley, in further view of Vora (US 20220164787).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, while the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the detecting the indication of the sale of the warranty for the item comprises: receiving, from a personal electronic device associated with the owner, information decoded from a bar code and/or quick response (QR) code presented by a point of sale device.
However, Vora, in a similar field of endeavor directed to mobile commerce including payments made from and to mobile devices that are secured in view of the geographic location of devices, teaches:
wherein the detecting the indication of the sale of the warranty for the item comprises: receiving, from a personal electronic device associated with the owner, information decoded from a bar code and/or quick response (QR) code presented by a point of sale device. {A user device may initiate a transaction by scanning a QR code or other optical marker presented at a POS location. The QR code may contain data related to the transaction. (paragraphs 0018, 0057, 0059).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley to include the location and temporal-based digital payment features of Vora, to improve the security of electronic transactions by decreasing the level of risk in view of location information. (see paragraph 0003 of Vora).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, and Vora, in further view of Rodriguez (US 20220284441), in further view of Haruna (US 20240386415).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, while the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, and Vora teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not teach:
wherein minting of the warranty NFT comprises:
transmitting, to the personal electronic device and/or the point of sale device, an offer to the owner to purchase a warranty for the item;
detecting, via the one or more processors, acceptance of the offer;
minting of the warranty NFT in response to acceptance of the offer.
However, Rodriguez, in a similar field of endeavor directed to retrieving warranty information and providing a notification regarding a product purchased by a user, teaches:
wherein minting of the warranty NFT comprises: transmitting, to the personal electronic device and/or the point of sale device, an offer to the owner to purchase a warranty for the item; {“[N]otification 450 may include an offer for the user to buy an extended warranty for the purchased item.” (paragraph 0038) Such notification “may be sent to the user while the user is on-line in a browsing session” (i.e., to a personal electronic device) (paragraph 0036)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, and Vora, to include the warranty tracking features of Rodriguez, to facilitate customer’s experience with product warranties. (see paragraph 0003 of Rodriguez).
While the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Vora, and Rodriguez teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
detecting, via the one or more processors, acceptance of the offer;
minting of the warranty NFT in response to acceptance of the offer.
However, Haruna, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a non-fungible token generation system, teaches:
detecting, via the one or more processors, acceptance of the offer; and {The user terminal or server detects a user’s selection of a request type (e.g., selecting a button to purchase or exchange an NFT), which is interpreted as an acceptance of the offer, and transmits the corresponding request to the smart contract for execution (paragraphs 0102-0107).}
minting of the warranty NFT in response to acceptance of the offer. {The system mints (i.e., generates and records on the blockchain) a warranty certificate NFT upon receiving a request and appropriate product information from the user, which functions as an acceptance of the offer. The generation condition is determined based on this acceptance, and the NFT is minted using the private key and configuration data stored in the system (paragraphs 0185-0190, 0195-0198).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Vora, and Rodriguez to include the NFT generation and transfer features of Haruna, to improve the process and simplicity of providing, NFTs. (see paragraphs 0006-0007 of Haruna).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley, in further view of Robyak (US 10755226) in further view of Allen (US 10713726).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, while the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
deploying, to a distributed ledger associated with the minted warranty NFT, a smart contract configured to (i) detect a temporal condition related to an expiration of the warranty, and (ii) self-execute to solicit one or more extended warranty offers for the item.
However, Robyak, in a similar field of endeavor directed to techniques for asset tracking and auditing in information management systems, teaches:
deploying, to a distributed ledger associated with the minted warranty NFT, a smart contract configured to (i) detect a temporal condition related to an expiration of the warranty {The system enables tracking of temporal conditions relating to warranty expiration and supports updates to the smart contract when extended warranties are purchased (col. 4 line 28 – col.5 line 10, col. 10, lines 17-20, col. 12, lines 24-33).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev and Quigley to include the blockchain functionalities integration features of Robyak, to improve tracking and auditing of asset platform architecture in a blockchain. (see col. 1, lines 42-46 of Robyak).
The combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, and Robyak does not teach:
(ii) self-execute to solicit one or more extended warranty offers for the item.
However, Allen, in a similar field of endeavor directed to utilizing sensor informatics to assist repairs, management, and general usage of appliances and other similar items, teaches:
(ii) self-execute to solicit one or more extended warranty offers for the item. {Appliance analyzer 2214 automatically evaluates warranty expiration dates based on appliance age and, in response to detecting expiration “may recommend corresponding extended warranty coverage” (col. 71, lines 19-23).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, and Robyak to include the insurance policy terms modifying features of Allen, to improve efficiency and fairness in the evaluation of claims. (see col. 1, lines 38-43 of Allen).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Robyak, and Allen teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
configuring, via the one or more processors, the smart contract to self-execute to:
generate an access credential for use by a solicited party when requesting the warranty information; and {The key token functions as an access credential and is generated when access by a solicited party is needed (paragraph 0061). Split-key cryptography is used to provide temporary access codes for controlled decryption (paragraph 0086).}
The combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Robyak, and Allen teaches the limitations set forth above. Allen further teaches:
generate an extended warranty solicitation request included in the one or more extended warranty offers that is (i) addressed to the solicited party {Appliance analyzer 2214 automatically evaluates warranty expiration dates based on appliance age and, in response to detecting expiration “may recommend corresponding extended warranty coverage” (col. 71, lines 19-23).} and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Robyak, and Allen to include the insurance policy terms modifying features of Allen, to improve efficiency and fairness in the evaluation of claims. (see col. 1, lines 38-43 of Allen).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Yakovlev, Quigley, Robyak, and Allen teaches the limitations set forth above. Yakovlev further discloses:
encrypting the access credential using a public encryption key associated with the solicited party. {The key token functions as an access credential and is generated when access by a solicited party is needed (paragraph 0061). Split-key cryptography and vaulted contracts are used to manage private keys (paragraph 0086).}
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/09/2025 have been carefully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
The amended limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed features merely describe the storage and retrieval of information (i.e., warranty data, identifiers, and ownership information) using generic computer components.
The alleged “shared storage” architecture constitutes a data organization scheme for managing warranty information across multiple tokens. Such arrangements amount to organizing and referencing data, which represents an abstract idea and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Applicant’s assertion that referencing a single storage location “saves storage space” and “reduces computational resources” is not supported by the claim scope. The claim does include any specific technique, instead, it only describes storing data in one place and using links to access it. From MPEP 2106.05(f): “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.” (Examiner's highlight.)
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions. The use of NFTs to represent warranty information, and linking such tokens to externally stored data, amounts to applying the abstract idea in a particular field (i.e., blockchain).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding any arguments concerning the dependent claims, examiner notes that they are predicated on the independent claims, which have been amended. For the same reason as above, these arguments are moot. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments and found them unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional pertinent references can be found on attached form PTO-892):
US 20240087016, which teaches: Embodiments of the present invention provide a system for monitoring and managing shared rights in resource units. In particular, the system may be configured to determine that a first user is initiating a first request to acquire shared rights in a resource, extract and display one or more fractional digital tokens associated with the resource, wherein the one or more fractional digital tokens are digital tokens stored on a distributed register, receive a selection of a first fractional digital token from the first user, extract and display a first security associated with the first fractional digital token, receive an input from the first user to acquire the first fractional digital token, and transfer the first fractional digital token to the first user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights