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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on February 04, 2026. Claims 1-44 were pending in the Application. Claims 21, 26, 29, 34, 37, 40, and 42 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-20, 22, 30, 36, and 38 remain canceled. Claims 21, 29, and 37 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 21, 29, and 37. Thus claims 21, 23-29, 31-35, 37, and 39-44 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, paragraphs 18-19, 21, and 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, moot. Claim 39 recites, in paragraph 18, the limitation: “determining, if the compared information matches, the user is an authorized recipient of the selected resource”. The claim language “if the compared information matches” is optional language, as the limitation “determining … the user is an authorized recipient of the selected resource” does not necessarily occur in the case “the compared information does not match”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art..
Claim 39 recites, in paragraph 19, the limitation: “transmitting a notification to the transferor that the user if an authorized recipient of the selected resource”. The claim language “if an authorized recipient of the selected resource” is optional language, as the limitation “transmitting a notification to the transferor” does not necessarily occur in the case “that the user is not an authorized recipient of the selected resource”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art..
Claim 40, recites, in paragraph 21, the limitation: “prompting, if a match is detected, a first entity to submit a data record …; …” Therefore, “prompting a first entity to submit a data record …” does not necessarily occur in the case “a match is not detected”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim 44 recites, in paragraph 24, the limitation: “terminating, if a match is not detected, exchange of the selected resource in the virtual environment”. The claim language “if a match is not detected” is optional language, as the limitation “terminating exchange of the selected resource in the virtual environment” does not necessarily occur in the case “a match of the selected resource in the virtual environment is detected”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art..
Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, paragraphs 18-19, 21, and 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant adequately amended to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. §101 in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, so that the combination of steps in the method of claim 37 (e.g., generating a resource non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger network associated with the unique content identifier to link the resource NFT to the selected resource, wherein the resource NFT comprises a link to a list of authorized transferors on the distributed ledger network; providing a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, wherein the virtual environment comprises a plurality of resource options; … accessing the resource NFT associated with the selected resource from the distributed ledger network; retrieving the list of authorized transferors, via the link stored in the resource NFT, associated with the selected resource, wherein the list of authorized transferors comprises one or more cryptographic addresses associated with one or more authorized transferors) operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way improving authentication of digital goods in simulated environments by providing unique, verifiable digital goods utilizing NFTs representing a distinct, indivisible, and scarce digital item, making it easy to authenticate and trace the ownership and provenance of the resource. The claim recites the additional elements of a decentralized storage system, a distributed ledger network, a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment, and one or more cryptographic addresses do not amount to significantly more for the method of claim 37. For example, they are still well-understood, routine, conventional devices that are used in this invention for their conventional functions of recording each transaction in a public, tamper-proof ledger, accessible by all participants. However, the decentralized storage system, the distributed ledger network, the virtual environment associated with the transferor to the user device of the user, the interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment, and the one or more cryptographic addresses provides the technological solution to the technological problem of creating NFTs to represent and link real-world resources in a virtual environment, providing an authenticity guarantee, and facilitating secure ownership transfer. These limitations are meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application. Accordingly, when viewed as a combination, the additional elements thus yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of “processing resource transfers”.
Therefore, as amended, the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Final Rejection Office Action dated May 07, 2025, so that the claims qualify as eligible subject matter after applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, And based on this standard, the claims are statutory, and correctly qualified as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, for paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, moot. Claim 21 recites “generate a metafile as a script object notation including …”, which eliminates the relative terminology “in a form of”, and provides a clear and objective standard for the metadata file being a script object notation. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is clear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 29 and 37. Dependent claims 23-28, which depend from claim 21; dependent claims 31-35, which depend from claim 29; and dependent claims 39-44, which depend from claim 37, also overcome the current rejection under 112(b), Relative Terminology. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope-Hybrid Claim, for paragraph 27 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope-Hybrid Claim, moot. Claim 21 recites “receive a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment”.
The indefinite claim language is “the user interacts” and “the user interacts with an interactable element … by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the “the user interacts” and “the user interacts with an interactable element … by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment” can be interpreted as actions related to a user making a selection of a resource, as well as to the actions of a server or a processing device, and therefore, claim 21 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages … to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates a confusion as to when direct infringement occurs, Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”).
Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is not clear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 29. Dependent claims 23-28, which depend from claim 21; and dependent claims 31-35, which depend from claim 29, are also similarly rejected under 112(b), Unclear Scope-Hybrid Claim. Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope-Hybrid Claim, paragraph 27 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, specification, (PG Pub US 20240394678 A1, para 55) provides support for the “link” being an association, and not an interactive link, between the token and the physical resource. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is clear, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, is hereby rescinded. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 29 and 37. Dependent claims 23-28, which depend from claim 21; dependent claims 31-35, which depend from claim 29; and dependent claims 39-44, which depend from claim 37, also have the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, rescinded.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended claim 26 to recite “The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more authorized transferors of the list of authorized transferors comprises the transferor, wherein the distribute ledger network …”, which eliminates the claim language “is stored” . Therefore, the scope of claim 26 is clear, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 29 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, is hereby rescinded. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 34 and 40. Dependent claim 27, which depends from claim 26; dependent claim 35, which depends from claim 34; and dependent claim 44, which depends from claim 40, also have the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, rescinded.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, for paragraph 30 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant argument is persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 29 recites “A computer program product for processing a resource transfer between a simulated and real environment, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to: receive …; generate …; upload …; generate …; provide …; receive …; access …; retrieve …; authenticate …; receive …; authenticate …; and process…” Specification, (PG Pub US 20240394678 A1, para 86), recites “The storage device 106 is capable of providing mass storage for the system 130. In one aspect, the storage device 106 may be or contain a computer-readable medium, such as a floppy disk device, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, or a tape device, a flash memory or other similar solid state memory device, or an array of devices, including devices in a storage area network or other configurations. A computer program product can be tangibly embodied in an information carrier. The computer program product may also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods, such as those described above …” Specification, (‘678 A1, para 86) makes it clear that the non-transitory computer-readable medium may contain a floppy disk device, a hard disk device, an optical disk device comprising a computer program product containing instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods as described. Therefore, the scope of claim 29 is clear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 32-35. Dependent claims 31-35, which depend from claim 29, also have the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, rescinded. (MPEP § 2173.02 II and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Applicant argument is persuasive to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The cited reference of record (Voorhees, U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210390531 A1), fails to anticipate at least “a non-transitory storage device comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to: receive provenance data …; generate a metadata file …; upload the generated metadata …; generate a resource non-fungible (NFT) …; provide a virtual environment …; receive a resource selection …; access the resource NFT …; retrieve the list of authorized transferors, …; authenticate a cryptographic address …; receive a request to authenticate …; authenticate the selected resource; and process a resource transfer …” . Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 05, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. Examiner submits that Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated November 05, 2025, of Chalkley, US 20230088936 A1, of Jakobsson, US 20230086644 A1, and of Matthews, US 20230092012 A1, and overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “upload the generated metadata file to a decentralized storage system to generate a unique content identifier”; “generate a resource non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger network associated with the unique content identifier to link the resource NFT to the selected resource, wherein the resource NFT comprises a link to a list of authorized transferors on the distributed ledger network”; “provide a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, wherein the virtual environment comprises a plurality of resource options”; “receive a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment; access the resource NFT associated with the selected resource from the distributed ledger network; ”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated November 05, 2025.
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 39, recites the limitation: “determining, if the compared information matches, the user is an authorized recipient of the selected resource; …” Therefore, “determining the user is an authorized recipient of the selected resource” does not necessarily occur in the case “the compared information does not match”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim 39, recites the limitation: “transmitting a notification to the transferor that the user if an authorized recipient of the selected resource; …” Therefore, “transmitting a notification to the transferor” does not necessarily occur in the case “the user is not an authorized recipient of the selected resource”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim 40, recites the limitation: “prompting, if a match is detected, a first entity to submit a data record …; …” Therefore, “prompting a first entity to submit a data record …” does not necessarily occur in the case “a match is not detected”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim 44, recites the limitation: “terminating, if a match is not detected, exchange of the selected resource …” Therefore, “terminating exchange of the selected resource …” does not necessarily occur in the case “a match is detected”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 21, 23-29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope – Hybrid Claim
Claim 21 recites “receive a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment”. The indefinite claim language is “the user interacts” and “the user interacts with an interactable element … by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the “the user interacts” and “the user interacts with an interactable element … by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment” can be interpreted as actions related to a user making a selection of a resource, as well as to the actions of a server or a processing device, and therefore, claim 21 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages … to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates a confusion as to when direct infringement occurs, Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”).
As claim 21 is directed to a “user”, the claim is indefinite as it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs because the claim is directed to both the actions of a “server or processing device” and to actions performed by a user. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is unclear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 29 and 37. Dependent claims 23-28, which depend from claim 21; and dependent claims 31-35, which depend from claim 29 are also similarly rejected. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and In Re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art could be found that would anticipate or render obvious the independent claims. Upon resolution of the above issues, said claims will be in condition for allowance for the following reasons:
Claim 21 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach:
“…
upload the generated metadata file to a decentralized storage system to generate a unique content identifier;
generate a resource non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger network associated with the unique content identifier to link the resource NFT to the selected resource, wherein the resource NFT comprises a link to a list of authorized transferors on the distributed ledger network;
provide a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, wherein the virtual environment comprises a plurality of resource options;
receive a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment;
access the resource NFT associated with the selected resource from the distributed ledger network;
…”
Claim 29 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach:
“…
upload the generated metadata file to a decentralized storage system to generate a unique content identifier;
generate a resource non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger network associated with the unique content identifier to link the resource NFT to the selected resource, wherein the resource NFT comprises a link to a list of authorized transferors on the distributed ledger network;
provide a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, wherein the virtual environment comprises a plurality of resource options;
receive a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment;
access the resource NFT associated with the selected resource from the distributed ledger network;
…”
Claim 37 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach:
“…
uploading the generated metadata file to a decentralized storage system to generate a unique content identifier;
generating a resource non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger network associated with the unique content identifier to link the resource NFT to the selected resource, wherein the resource NFT comprises a link to a list of authorized transferors on the distributed ledger network;
providing a virtual environment associated with a transferor to a user device of a user, wherein the virtual environment comprises a plurality of resource options;
receiving a resource selection from the user for the selected resource, wherein the user interacts with an interactable element associated with the selected resource for the resource selection in the virtual environment by touching the interactable element from within the virtual environment;
accessing the resource NFT associated with the selected resource from the distributed ledger network;
…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davis et al (U. S. Patent No. 11475494 B1) – System, Method And Program Product For Obtaining Digital Assets
Davis discloses systems and methods to create apparel and other goods that provide embedded verification of a transferrable non-fungible token ("NFT"). For instance, a system may identify a good with a visualization of an NFT artifact, and a tag that is encoded with a unique network identifier. The system may obtain data for a profile of a user that purchases the good, may link the data from the profile of the user to the unique network identifier, may record the user as an owner of a NFT created for the NFT artifact on a blockchain, and may link the NFT to the unique network identifier. The system may present a website that is dynamically populated with the data from the profile and ownership information recorded with the NFT on the blockchain in response to a request from a device that reads the unique network identifier from the tag.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights