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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/10/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to applicant’s amendment for U.S. Patent
application 18/201,336 filed on 09/10/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are amended.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
Intended result/use:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, the claimed limitation “for…” in “a cryptographic address generated for associated with the transferee as owner of the transferee NFT” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, the claimed limitation “to engage…” in “the resource NFT defines a list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the claimed limitation “indicating an…” in “…references the resource NFT indicating an authentication status of the resource” consists of language disclosing an intended use/result, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Nonfunctional language:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, the claimed limitation “wherein the cryptographic address is associated with an asymmetric key pair comprising a public key and a private key, with the private key held by the transferee, and wherein the asymmetric key pair is cryptographically bound to the transferee NFT within the distributed ledger for verification of both user identity and resource ownership” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19, the claimed limitation “…comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferee” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 20, the claimed limitation “…the notification comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferor” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 14-15 and 17-20 are directed to a computer-implemented method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 14, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computer-implemented method for self-authenticating a resource transfer request within an electronic network, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving the resource transfer request within the electronic network between a first virtual representation of a transferor and a second virtual representation of a transferee, wherein the resource transfer request comprises a resource and an associated resource non-fungible cryptographic token (resource NFT);
generating a self-authenticating smart contract comprised of:
a transferor non-fungible cryptographic token (NFT) associated with the transferor, wherein the transferor NFT is stored within a distributed ledger;
a transferee NFT associated with the transferee, wherein the transferee NFT is stored within the distributed ledger;
authenticating the transferor through the transferor NFT within the electronic network;
authenticating the transferee through the transferee NFT within the electronic network;
designating, within the self-authenticating smart contract, a cryptographic address generated for the transferee as an owner of the transferee NFT, wherein the designation is immutably recorded on the distributed ledger, wherein
the cryptographic address is associated with an asymmetric key pair comprising a public key and a private key, with the private key held by the transferee; and wherein the asymmetric key pair is cryptographically bound to the transferee NFT within the distributed ledger for verification of both user identity and resource ownership;
authenticating the resource transfer request within the self-authenticating smart contract upon authentication of the transferor via the transferor NFT and authentication of the transferee via the transferee NFT within the self-authenticating smart contract; and
triggering a resource transfer between the transferor and the transferee through a verified association of the first virtual representation with the transferor NFT and the second virtual representation with the transferee NFT upon authentication of the resource transfer request.
Claim 14, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for managing, authenticating and transferring a resource between parties. The claim achieves this by receiving a transfer request, generating a contract including token information of a transferee and a transferor, authenticating the parties via the token information, designating a cryptographic address associated to an asymmetric key pair to the transferee as an owner, recording the designation of the cryptographic address, authenticating the request, recording the transfer, and transferring the resource between the parties. Claims 1 and 8 are significantly similar to claim 14. As such claims 1 and 8 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., fundamental economic practices or practices and commercial or legal interactions).
Step 2A Prong Two: 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 additional elements of a first virtual representation, a second virtual representation, a distributed ledger, an electronic network and a self-authenticating smart contract merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “non fungible” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 20-36 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2, 9 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the resource NFT defines a list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of NFT fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NFT” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of “non fungible tokens” (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4 and 17 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
display an interactable element, wherein the interactable element provides information on the list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request; and
verify the transferor against the list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an interactable element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Claim 11 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
an executable portion configured to authenticate the resource within the resource transfer request;
an executable portion configured to display an interactable element, wherein the interactable element provides information on the list of entities authorized to transfer the resource; and
an executable portion configured to verify the transferor against the list of entities authorized to transfer the resource.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an executable portion and an interactable element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
publish a data record to the distributed ledger that references the resource NFT indicating an authentication status of the resource
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of NFT and distributed ledger fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “NFT” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of “non fungible tokens” (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6, 12 and 19 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
transmitting a notification to the transferor, the notification comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferee.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7, 13 and 20 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
transmitting a notification to the transferee, the notification comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferor.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 8, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis (US 2022/0058633 A1) in view of Ferenczi (US 11,757,640 B2), further in view of Deliz Centeno (US 2021/0193084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 14, Yantis discloses:
receiving the resource transfer request within the electronic network initiated between []of a transferee, wherein the resource transfer request comprises a resource and an associated resource non-fungible cryptographic token (resource NFT); (Yantis ¶0013, The method also includes receiving, by the digital wallet graphical user interface, an instruction to transfer a token from the inventory of tokens to a recipient. Yantis ¶0030, The method also includes receiving a transfer request to transfer the specific token from an owner of the specific token to a different user, wherein the transfer request includes a token identifier that identifies the specific token and a public address of the different user.)
authenticate the resource transfer request within the self-authenticating smart contract upon authentication of the transferor via the transferor NFT and authentication of the transferee via the transferee NFT within the self-authenticating smart contract; and (Yantis ¶0030, The method also includes validating the specific token based on the token identifier and the first chain of blocks and verifying that the different user has a valid account on the tokenization platform based on the public address of the user and the main chain of blocks. Yantis ¶0838, The virtual representation of the item may include information that identifies the item (e.g., a serial number corresponding to the item, a model number of the item, and the like), information relating to the item (e.g., a classification of the item, textual descriptions, images, audio, video, virtual reality data, augmented reality data, and the like), and/or code that may be used to facilitate or verify transactions involving the item (e.g., smart contracts). In some embodiments, the platform may “tokenize” an item on behalf of a seller of the item by generating a set of tokens based on the virtual representation of the item and storing the tokens and associated metadata in a cryptographically secure distributed ledger, thereby making the tokens (and the virtual representation) verifiable, transferable, and trackable. Yantis ¶0843, In embodiments, each virtual representation of an item may include or be associated with a smart contract that, for example, provides a set of verifiable conditions that must be satisfied in order to self-execute a transaction (e.g., transfer of ownership or expiration) relating to an item represented by the virtual representation. In embodiments, each token corresponding to a virtual representation may be associated with the smart contract that corresponds to the virtual representation. In embodiments, a smart contract corresponding to a virtual representation may define the conditions that must be verified to generate new tokens, conditions that must be verified in order to transfer ownership of tokens, conditions that must be verified to redeem a token, and/or conditions that must be met to destroy a token. A smart contract may also contain code that defines actions to be taken when certain conditions are met. When implicated, the smart contract may determine whether the conditions defined therein are satisfied, and if so, to self-execute the actions corresponding to the conditions.)
triggering a resource transfer between the transferor and the transferee through a verified association of the first virtual representation with the transferor NFT and the second virtual representation with the transferee NFT upon authentication of the resource transfer request. (Yantis ¶0011, Furthermore, in response to validating the specific token and verifying the different user, the method includes updating the distributed ledger with a block that includes ownership data that indicates that a specific token corresponding to the virtual representation is owned by the transacting user. The method also includes receiving a redemption request to redeem the token from a user device of the different user. Additionally, in response to receiving the redemption request, the method further includes executing a workflow to satisfy the transaction for instance of the item corresponding to the token. Yantis ¶0016, in response to validating the specific token and verifying the different user, updating the distributed ledger with a block that includes ownership data that indicates that a specific token corresponding to the virtual representation is owned by the transacting user. Yantis ¶0030, The method also includes, in response to validating the specific token and verifying the different user, updating the second chain of blocks with a new block that includes ownership data that indicates that the specific token corresponding to the virtual representation is owned by the different user. Yantis ¶0150, the second digital token is exchangeable among accounts via a user interface of the system. Yantis ¶0330, In embodiments, upon transfer of the digital token. The ledger is updated to reflect the change of ownership of the digital token. Yantis ¶0980, In embodiments, ownership data of a specific token corresponding to the virtual representation in the first side chain of blocks is updated to indicate that the transacting user owns the specific token. In embodiments, the transaction of the item includes validating the specific token based on the digital-token identifier and the first chain of blocks, verifying that the different user has a valid account on the tokenization platform based on the public address of the user and the main chain of blocks, and, in response to validating the specific token and verifying the different user, updating the second chain of blocks with a new block. The new block includes ownership data that indicates that the specific token corresponding to the virtual representation is owned by the different user.)
Yantis further discloses:
at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (Yantis ¶0989, The processor, or any machine utilizing one, may include non-transitory memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs as described herein and elsewhere. The processor may access a non-transitory storage medium through an interface that may store methods, codes, and instructions as described herein and elsewhere. The storage medium associated with the processor for storing methods, programs, codes, program instructions or other type of instructions capable of being executed by the computing or processing device may include but may not be limited to one or more of a CD-ROM, DVD, memory, hard disk, flash drive, RAM, ROM, cache and the like.)
Yantis does not disclose, however Ferenczi teaches:
generating a self-authenticating smart contract comprised of: a transferor non-fungible cryptographic token (NFT) associated with the transferor, wherein the transferor NFT is stored within a distributed ledger; (Ferenczi Col 5 lines 40-44, The token smart contract 121 can execute on the nodes 103 of the distributed ledger 118 to create and record on the distributed ledger 118 the non-fungible token that is to be uniquely associated with the verified user and/or user account)
a transferee NFT associated with the transferee, wherein the transferee NFT is stored within the distributed ledger; (Ferenczi Col 5 lines 40-44, The token smart contract 121 can execute on the nodes 103 of the distributed ledger 118 to create and record on the distributed ledger 118 the non-fungible token that is to be uniquely associated with the verified user and/or user account. Ferenczi Abstract, The non-fungible token is associated with a user identifier and can be used by an access provider to authenticate a user requesting access to restricted content provided by the access provider.)
authenticate the transferor through the transferor NFT within the electronic network; (Ferenczi Abstract, Disclosed are various embodiments for authenticating a user using non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Ferenczi Col 2 lines 14-21, when a client device associated with the user requests access from an access provider to an access-restricted website or other type of access-restricted area ( e.g., building, concert venue, network, etc.), the access provider (e.g., website server, building computing device, venue system, etc.) uses the properties of the non-fungible token to verify one's identity 20 and permit access upon verification. Ferenczi Col 15 lines 51-57 , At block 615, the authentication service 147 determines whether the user is verified for authentication. In particular, the authentication service 147 validates the token data 130 by determining that the public key 133 corresponding to the private key 150 used to sign the cryptographic challenge is included in the token data 130 of the token smart contract 121 corresponding to the NFT)
authenticate the transferee through the transferee NFT within the electronic network; (Ferenczi Abstract, Disclosed are various embodiments for authenticating a user using non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Ferenczi Col 2 lines 14-21, when a client device associated with the user requests access from an access provider to an access-restricted website or other type of access-restricted area ( e.g., building, concert venue, network, etc.), the access provider (e.g., website server, building computing device, venue system, etc.) uses the properties of the non-fungible token to verify one's identity 20 and permit access upon verification. Ferenczi Col 15 lines 51-57 , At block 615, the authentication service 147 determines whether the user is verified for authentication. In particular, the authentication service 147 validates the token data 130 by determining that the public key 133 corresponding to the private key 150 used to sign the cryptographic challenge is included in the token data 130 of the token smart contract 121 corresponding to the NFT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Yantis’s teaching with Ferenczi’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to improve the security and ease of user authentication while preserving the privacy of the user as suggested by Ferenczi (Col1 lines 17-19).
The combination of Yantis and Ferenczi do not disclose, however Deliz Centeno teaches:
the first virtual representation and the second virtual representation (Deliz Centeno ¶0037, First avatar 202 may correspond to an avatar associated with a first user, and second avatar 204 may correspond to an avatar associated with a second user. Deliz Centeno ¶0038, In some embodiments, first avatar 202 is associated with a virtual object 206. Deliz Centeno ¶0039, In some embodiments, the virtual object 206 is transferred between avatars. A user associated with the first avatar 202, for instance, may request transfer of virtual object 206. By way of example, requesting transfer of virtual object 206 may include activating virtual object 206. Requesting transfer of virtual object 206 may include requesting transfer of the virtual object206 to another avatar or another location. For example, with reference to FIG. 2B, the virtual object 206 maybe transferred from the first avatar 202 to the second avatar 204. The avatar intended to receive the virtual object maybe referred to as a transferee avatar, and the avatar of which the virtual object initially follows movement may be referred to as a transferor avatar. In some embodiments, transfer of a virtual object maybe requested by the transferee avatar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis and Ferenczi’s with Deliz Centeno’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to allow personalization and effective interactions that reflect the user’s intent.
The combination of Yantis, Ferenczi and Deliz Centeno do not disclose, however Lee teaches:
designate, within the self-authenticating smart contract, a cryptographic address generated for the transferee as an owner of the transferee NFT, wherein the designation is immutably recorded on the distributed ledger, wherein (Lee ¶0074, A smart contract 402 may be implemented within the blockchain 400. In some cases, like with the Ethereum blockchain, the smart contract 402 may be executable code recorded on chain and may include functions that are available for execution by having those functions called in subsequent transactions. In this example, the smart contract 402 relates to NFT generation and/or management. That is, the smart contract 402 may have functions for minting NFTs, determining/validating ownership of those NFTs, transferring ownership of those NFTs from a current valid owner to a new owner. It will be appreciated that “ownership” is generally associated with an address, e.g. a public key value which may sometime be referred to as a wallet identifier or wallet address. A computing device that holds the corresponding private key may be used to authenticate the computing device as the owner of that public key, thereby enabling the computing device to take actions with respect to the “owned” NFT, such as transferring it to a different wallet address.)
the cryptographic address is associated with an asymmetric key pair comprising a public key and a private key, with the private key held by the transferee; and wherein the asymmetric key pair is cryptographically bound to the transferee NFT within the distributed ledger for verification of both user identity and resource ownership; (Lee ¶0033, Ownership of an NFT by a wallet is recorded on-chain and is verifiable by third parties. In some cases, a wallet may own a plurality of NFTs. The ownership of those NFTs may be verifiable by third parties based on a query to the blockchain network, i.e. to a blockchain node, providing data from the wallet, such as a public key associated with the wallet. In some cases the query may identify the NFTs by way of unique identifiers, or by way of an identifier for the NFT collection to which they belong. The blockchain node may respond by providing verification that the public key provided is associated with the NFT as reflected in the data recorded on the blockchain. The NFT smart contract may provide functions for verifying NFT ownership data. Lee ¶0056, In some cases, the wallet application 1032 may securely store public and private key pairs associated with the user device 1002. The public keys may be shared and made publicly available for the purpose of receiving blockchain-based data transfers of fungible or non-fungible tokens. The private keys may be stored securely and confidentially and may be used by the wallet application 1032 in certain signature operations for providing digital signatures that prove ownership of corresponding public keys, among other things. The public keys may represent or be mathematically linked to corresponding wallet addresses. The wallet address may be referenced in blockchain transactions as a sender or recipient of digital assets. A given wallet address may be recorded as the “owner” of holder of one or more digital assets, as reflected by the blockchain. Lee ¶0062, In some cases, a smart contract on chain within the blockchain network may provide an ownership verification function. For example, in the context of Ethereum, an ERC-721 compliant smart contract may provide the ownerOf( ) function for determining the blockchain-recorded owner of a particular NFT.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi and Deliz Centeno with Lee’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide an automated transfer process that is secured and verifiable in the blockchain.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee disclose each and every element of claim 1 and 14. The combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee further discloses:
publish a data record to the distributed ledger that references the resource NFT indicating an authentication status of the resource. (Yantis ¶0011, in response to validating the specific token and verifying the different user, the method includes updating the distributed ledger with a block that includes ownership data that indicates that a specific token corresponding to the virtual representation is owned by the transacting user.)
Claim 2, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee as applied to claim 1, 8 and 14, and further in view of Jakobsson (US 2023/0385815).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee do not disclose, however Jakobsson teaches:
the resource NFT defines a list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request. (Jakobsson ¶0220, The data portion may include various types of editable data and/or data structures. including but not limited to banlists and/or allow lists. Process 2000 receives (2010) from a requesting party, a request for a transaction involving a token, including but not limited to minting and/or token transfers. In accordance with numerous embodiments of the invention, requests may include but are not limited to party address(es) for the requesting party, receiver(s), and/or creators of the token(s).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee with Jakobsson’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a system that may cross-reference entities requesting validation with other sources, thereby improving the accuracy and security of a validation.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19, the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee do not disclose, however Jakobsson teaches:
transmitting a notification to the transferor, the notification comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferee. (Jakobsson ¶0375, Process 3200 updates (3230) the balance of the NFT, when the validity of the received request has been ascertained. Process 3200 transmits (3210) a signal and/or message towards the NFT and/or wallet indicated as the receiving entity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee with Jakobsson’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide an extra layer of transparency by informing the transferor when the transferee has been authenticated ensuring that the transferor remains aware of the status of the transfer.
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 20, the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee do not disclose, however Jakobsson teaches:
transmitting a notification to the transferee, the notification comprising an indication of the authentication of the transferor. (Jakobsson ¶0007, In a still further embodiment, when the address of the receiving party is listed on the token allow list: the method transmits an approval to the requesting party; and allows token access to at least one of the requesting party and the receiving party. See Claim 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno and Lee with Jakobsson’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide an additional layer of transparency by informing the transferee when the transferor has been authenticated ensuring that both parties are aware of the status of the transfer.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno, Lee and Jakobsson as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Alsahnawi (US 2024/0289783 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno, Lee and Jakobsson do not disclose, however Alsahnawi teaches:
display an interactable element, wherein the interactable element provides information on the list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request; and (Alsahnawi ¶0028, The system may retrieve or include a list of verified user identifiers, which may comprise user identifiers that have already been evaluated in some way, such as evaluated for trustworthiness and/or accuracy of identity. By including a user identifier, the system may evaluate whether an entity requesting non transferable token generation may be deserving of such a token using an identifier of the entity, i.e., the user. For example, the system may conduct a search (e.g., a web search or a search through blockchain transactions recorded on a blockchain node) in order to determine whether a user or a user identifier corresponding to the user has been flagged for malicious behavior or has otherwise developed an unfavorable or favorable reputation.)
verify the transferor against the list of entities authorized to engage in the resource transfer request. (Alsahnawi ¶0081, the first non-transferable token by verifying that the user identifier provided by the first user matches one in a list of verified user identifiers. For example, the system may retrieve, from a database of verified users, a plurality of verified user identifiers. The system may determine that the first user identifier matches a verified user identifier of the plurality of verified user identifiers. Based on determining that the first user identifier matches the verified user identifier, the system may determine to generate the first non-transferable
token.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Yantis, Ferenczi, Deliz Centeno, Lee and Jakobsson with Alsahnawi’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide a more robust system that that will ensure that users can view and actively engage with and verify the list of authorized entities thereby enhancing trust and usability.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112B
Claim rejection regarding claims 1, 8 and 14 is moot in light of the new claim amendments. However, claims 1, 8 and 14 remain rejected as indefinity, because the phrase “initiated between…” is unclear. The claim does not provide sufficient clarify as to what constitutes the initiation of the resource transfer between a first virtual representation of a transferor and a second virtual representation of a transferee.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions in regards to the 101 rejection in the previous office action.
The applicant disagrees with the office determination that the pending claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the certain methods of organizing human activities”. Specifically, the applicant asserts that “the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the field of securely controlling usage or access of NFT by leveraging continuous, automated processes that improve the efficiency, accuracy, and security associated with controlling usage, access, and ownership of NFTs within a virtual environment without requiring manual intervention. Specifically, the use of NFTs, distributed ledger technology, and monitoring of usage, access, or ownership of NFTs enhances the integrity of NFTs. The system continuously tracks the requests associated with usage, access, or ownership transfer of NFTs and processes the requests based on one or more access controls set during the creation of NFTs.” The examiner has carefully considered these assertions and respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a process of verifying users, associating tokens and triggering transfer upon authentication which mirrors traditional economic practices involving ownership verification, asset transfers and execution of agreements between entities. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims remain directed to an abstract idea, specifically directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions). The abstract idea described in the claims belongs to both groups of fundamental economic principles and commercial or legal interactions because it focuses on the authentication and transfer of a resource between parties which is a core activity in commerce. While, applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement by “leveraging continuous, automated processes that improve the efficiency, accuracy, and security associated with controlling usage, access, and ownership of NFTs within a virtual environment without requiring manual intervention. Specifically, the use of NFTs, distributed ledger technology, and monitoring of usage, access, or ownership of NFTs enhances the integrity of NFTs”, the claim language does not recite any technical mechanism that result in such improvements.
The applicant asserts that “By merely choosing specific phrases and not the claim as a whole, the Office has failed to present a proper analysis as to why the concept of self-authenticating transfer request within an electronic network is a certain method of organizing human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion as well. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
“The pending claims recite elements that are integrated into a practical application, and therefore are not directed to an abstract idea”. Specifically, that applicant states that this is achieved by “by introducing automatic authentication procedures for participants in a resource transfer within an electronic network” and “leveraging self-authenticating smart contracts to authenticate transferees and transferors within an electronic environment.” The examiner respectfully disagrees on this assertion. The claim merely implements a fundamental economic principle and commercial or legal interactions as described above. In response, the examiner finds that a method of authenticating and executing a resource transfer using generic computing components such as distributed ledgers, NFTs and smart contracts does not provide any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. The additional elements of NFT, a distributed ledger, a first virtual representation, a second virtual representation, an electronic network and a self-authenticating smart contract are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide any specific technical solution that improves how a distributed ledger, NFT or smart contract operate. Therefore, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
“The claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea” The examiner also disagrees and finds this assertion not persuasive. The claim invention fundamentally pertains to a method for collecting, authenticating and transferring data which is an implementation of fundamental economic principles or practices. Further, the additional elements of a distributed ledger, an electronic network and smart contract, as recited in the claim, are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. To meet the requirements for patent eligibility, the claim must do more than simply apply this abstract idea using generic technological tools. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the
newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the newly amended claims. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 2023/0104103 A1 to Eby et al. discloses: Disclosed are various embodiments for using custodial systems to maintain ownership of digital assets and facilitate transfers of digital assets between individuals. To facilitate a user taking possession of a digital asset, the custodial system could update an owner identifier for a digital asset in an asset ledger to include a public key of an asset custodian, the public key of the asset custodian indicating that the asset custodian is the owner of the digital asset. The custodial system could then provide a verifiable credential to an identity wallet, the verifiable credential being linked to the digital asset in the digital asset ledger. Subsequently, the custodial system could create an asset record that stores an owner identifier in association with an asset identifier for the digital asset, the owner identifier representing a user of the identity wallet.
EP3690778 A1 to Hu, Zongwang discloses: The present specification discloses a resource
transfer verification method and apparatus, and an electronic payment verification method and apparatus. The method includes: receiving a resource transfer request that is sent by a resource transferor and that is used for requesting transfer of resources of the resource transferor to a resource transferee, further determining verification information used for indicating that the transfer succeeds after resources of the resource transferor are transferred to the resource transferee according to the resource transfer request, and transmitting a resource transfer result including the verification information to the resource transferor, so that the resource transferee can accurately determine, according to the verification information, whether the transfer is completed when the resource transferor shows the resource transferee the resource transfer result, thereby effectively avoiding the omission of the resource transfer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571)272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698