DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 21 and 29. Claims 1-8 and 21-32 remain pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1-8 are directed to the statutory category of a process, claims 21-28 are directed to the statutory category of a machine, and claims 29-32 are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture1.
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, a search query via a network from an originating device;
searching, by the processing device, metadata maintained in a metadata registry based on the search query, the metadata describing one or more characteristics associated with a plurality of nonfungible tokens, respectively;
generating, by the processing device, a search result identifying at least one nonfungible token of a plurality of nonfungible tokens based on the searching;
querying, by the processing device, a blockchain network using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token for event data describing use of the at least one nonfungible token by one or more entities possessing the at least one nonfungible token;
obtaining, by the processing device in response to the search query and using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token, the event data associated with use of the at least one nonfungible token; and
outputting by the processing device, the event data describing the use of the
at least one nonfungible token by one or more entities possessing the at least one nonfungible token and an identification of the at least one nonfungible token for receipt by the originating device.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of identifying one or more assets (e.g., NFTs) based on a search query from an entity and, subsequently, providing information (e.g., event data) about the one or more assets to the entity. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic practice (e.g., identifying, tracking and providing asset information) and/or method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., managing a relationship between a data requestor and a data provider, where the data provider provides the data requestor with an information/data feed pertaining to one or more assets based on an initial query by the data requestor). The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., an NFT environment, a blockchain environment, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a processing device, a computing device, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In this instance, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a processing device [which implements the steps of the abstract idea], and a network. Independent claim 21 recites the additional elements of: a computing device comprising a processing device and a computer-readable storage medium, and a network. Independent claim 29 recites the additional elements of: a processing device and a network. The processing device, computing device, computer-readable storage medium and network are all recited at a high-level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer or generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims’ use of the computing device, processing device and/or network does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification (See e.g., Specification [0071-0074]), that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components (i.e., a particular machine, invoke any specialized programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions). See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the computing components in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the computing components, or another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the use of computing device, processing device and/or network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8, 22-28 and 30-32 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 22 and 30 refine the abstract idea by describing attributes of the asset/NFT (e.g., how the asset/NFT is generated). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that applicant is not positively reciting a step where the NFT is generated through execution of a smart contract (e.g., the claim(s) does/do not indicate that the method further comprises generating the NFT […].).
Dependent claims 3, 23 and 31 refine the abstract idea by describing how the outputted event data is provided (e.g., as a data stream in real time). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 24 and 32 refine the abstract idea by describing attributes of the asset/NFT (e.g., what the asset/NFT could be used for). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 25 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of data obtained and outputted (e.g., data pertaining to a purchase). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 26 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of data obtained and outputted (e.g., demographic data). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 27 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of data obtained (e.g., ownership data of the asset/NFT). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 28 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of data obtained and outputted (e.g., transaction data). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 21-25 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patt et al. (WO 2024/005825 A1) (hereinafter “Patt”) in view of Bacon et al. (US 2024/0013202 A1) (hereinafter “Bacon”).
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 29: Patt discloses:
Regarding Claim 1: A method comprising:
Regarding Claim 21: A computing device comprising:
a processing device (See at least Patt [0090 – 0094; 0100; Claim 1]); and
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that responsive to execution by the processing device causes the processing device to perform operations including (See at least Patt [0090 – 0094; 0100; Claim 1]):
Regarding Claim 29: One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that responsive to execution by a processing device causes the processing device to perform operations comprising (See at least Patt [0090 – 0094; 0100; Claim 1]):
receiving, by a processing device, a search query via a network from an originating device (See at least Patt [0038 “a search query can be received”; 0040; 0105 “The server 110 can exchange data with one or more user computing systems 130 over the network 180”; 0200 – 0203; 0254 “receiving a search query from a user computing system”; 0259 - 0261]. Patt discloses receiving, by a processing device (i.e., server/system), a search query via a network from an originating device (i.e., from a user computing system).);
searching, by the processing device, metadata maintained in a metadata registry based on the search query, the metadata describing one or more characteristics associated with a plurality of nonfungible tokens, respectively (See at least Patt [0038; 0076 “token data can be identified as being associated with a particular non-fungible token grouping (e.g., a particular community) based on a determined artist name, a determined publisher, and/or by metadata associated with the non-fungible token. The grouping may be determined based on minting date, an association with an event, and/or based on the transaction history of the purchasers”; 0084; 0199; 0200 “search engine 404 which can then access a non-fungible token index database 406 to determine one or more non-fungible token search results 410 responsive to the search query 402”; 0240; 0242; 0256; 0257; 0262]. Patt discloses searching, by the processing device, metadata (i.e., non-fungible token metadata) maintained in a metadata registry (i.e., index database) based on the search query, the metadata describing one or more characteristics associated with a plurality of nonfungible tokens, respectively.);
generating, by the processing device, a search result identifying at least one nonfungible token of a plurality of nonfungible tokens based on the searching (See at least Patt [0038 “one or more search results can be associated with non-fungible tokens…can be provided with one or more indicators indicating the non-fungible token nature (e.g., provided with one or more labels, flags, and/or tags). In some implementations, the one or more non- fungible token search results can be provided with a generated preview of the digital resource based on the index data”; 0040; 0103; 0200 – 0204; 0253; 0254; 0263].);
querying, by the processing device, a blockchain network using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token for event data (See at least Patt [0063; 0077; 0080 “may search for a contract address and a token ID to identify token data…identify non-fungible token drop events and/or lazy minting events…obtain data on potential minting events”; 0103; 0179]. Patt discloses querying (i.e., searching), by the processing device, a blockchain network (i.e., blockchain/blockchain node) using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., using data associated with the non-fungible token(s), e.g., a token ID) for event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID).);
obtaining, by the processing device in response to the search query and using the identification of the at least one non-fungible token, the event data (See at least Patt [0077; 0080 “may search for a contract address and a token ID to identify token data…identify non-fungible token drop events and/or lazy minting events…obtain data on potential minting events”; 0103; 0179 “The identification model 1104 can detect token IDs and/or contract addresses and can then obtain portions of the blockchain data associated with the token ID and/or the contract address, which can then be processed (e.g., the data can be processed for aggregating and/or concatenating the data) in order to generate the token data 1106”]. Patt discloses obtaining, by the processing device in response to the search query and using the identification of the at least one non-fungible token (i.e., using data associated with the non-fungible token(s), e.g., a token ID), the event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID).); and
outputting by the processing device, the event data and an identification of the at least one nonfungible token for receipt by the originating device (See at least Patt [0038 “The one or more non-fungible token search results can be provided for display in a search results interface (e.g., a search results page)…”; 0048 “Identification data can be provided as an output. The identification data can be descriptive of the candidate token data being associated with the non-fungible token. The identification data can be generated based on the determination that the candidate token data is descriptive of the non-fungible token. The identification data can be descriptive of the candidate token data including token data for indexing”; 0051; 0058-0059; 0063; 0066; 0193; 0200 - 0203; 0213; 0224]. Patt discloses outputting (i.e., providing for display) by the processing device, the event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID) and an identification (i.e., identification data) of the at least one nonfungible token for receipt by the originating device (i.e., by the user computing system).).
As indicated above, Patt discloses querying a blockchain network using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token for event data, obtaining the event data, and outputting the event data for receipt by the originating device. Patt differs from the claimed invention because Patt does not explicitly disclose where the event data describes use of the at least one nonfungible token by one or more entities possessing the at least one nonfungible token.
Bacon, on the other hand, teaches where the event data describes use of the at least one nonfungible token by one or more entities possessing the at least one nonfungible token (See at least Bacon [0037; 0056 “In order to determine the usage history with respect to the NFT, the access controller 1024 may query, in some cases via the blockchain network API 1028, the second blockchain network 1040 for usage data regarding the NFT.”; 0077; 0080; 0088; 0092]; Fig. 5 step 510. Bacon teaches where the event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the NFT) describes use of the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., usage history of the NFT) by one or more entities (i.e., one or more users) possessing the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., where possession of the NFT(s) is indicated by the fact that the NFT(s) is/are in the user wallet).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bacon into Patt’s method which queries for event data associated with nonfungible tokens, obtains the event data, and outputs the event data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to determine the number of prior uses of a particular NFT (Bacon [0081]).
Regarding claims 2, 22 and 30: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention above. Patt further discloses the use of smart contracts that can execute certain actions (e.g., a transfer) in response to certain events. See e.g., Patt [0042; 0052; 0170; 0217]. Patt also indicates that the smart contracts could be associated with a non-fungible toke. Patt [0047]. However, Patt does not explicitly disclose wherein the nonfungible token is generated through execution of a smart contract by a distributed state machine of a blockchain network.
Bacon, on the other hand, further teaches wherein the nonfungible token is generated through execution of a smart contract by a distributed state machine of a blockchain network (See at least Bacon [0026-0027 “In the case of an NFT smart
contract, a minting operation may cause the smart contract to produce a new unique NFT that corresponds to a particular one unique NFT.”; 0069-0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bacon into Patt’s method which utilizes smart contracts in conjunction with non-fungible tokens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to determine the number of prior uses of a particular NFT (Bacon [0081]).
Regarding claims 3, 23 and 31: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1, 21 and 29. As indicated above, Patt discloses outputting (i.e., providing for display) event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID). Patt also indicates than NFT index data may be updated at set intervals and/or may be obtained at a frequency based on transaction trends, performance data, type of digital asset, the particular blockchain, time of minting (e.g., older non-fungible tokens may be updated less often due to larger computational cost associated with the crawl), and/or based on cost. Patt [0266]. However, Patt does not explicitly disclose wherein the outputting of the event data is performed as an event data stream in real time.
Bacon, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art to output event data as an event data stream in real time (See at least Bacon [0117]. Bacon teaches outputting event data (e.g., customer creation events, product change events, or order cancellation events, etc.) as an event data stream (i.e., as a subscription model) in real time (i.e., as they occur).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the outputting of the event data is performed as an event data stream in real time, as taught/suggested by Bacon, into Patt’s method of outputting event data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to receive updates pertaining to relevant events as the events occur (Bacon [0117]).
Regarding claims 4, 24 and 32: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1, 21 and 29. Patt further discloses wherein the at least one nonfungible token is configured to permit access to digital content by an entity that possesses the at least one nonfungible token (See at least Patt [0280; 0283; 0286 “The non-fungible tokens can be utilized to access private chat groups or blogs inside different platforms and communities”]).
Regarding claims 5 and 25: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1 and 21. As indicated above, Patt discloses outputting (i.e., providing for display) event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID). However, Patt does not explicitly disclose wherein the event data describes a purchase made by an entity having the at least one nonfungible token.
Bacon, on the other hand, teaches wherein the event data describes a purchase made by an entity having the at least one nonfungible token (See at least Bacon [0037-0038; 0083]. Bacon teaches wherein the event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the NFT) describes a purchase made (i.e., purchase event) by an entity (i.e., a user) having the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., having 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 incorporate the teachings of Bacon into Patt’s method which outputs event data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to assess whether the NFT has been previously used and, if so, how many times and for what purposes (Bacon 0084]).
Regarding claims 7 and 27: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1 and 21. Patt further discloses wherein the obtaining includes identifying one or more entities that possess the at least one nonfungible token by querying a blockchain network (See at least Patt [0242 “The index data can include a name associated with the non-fungible token and/or the digital asset, a name of the digital asset creator/publisher, transaction data (e.g., the current and/or past owners, purchase price, transactional trends, trends of related non-fungible tokens, gas price, etc.), a topic of the digital asset, non-fungible token metadata, pixel labels, non-fungible token description, freeform text associated with the non-fungible token, and/or notoriety associated with the non-fungible token, the publisher, or the creator.”; 0274; 0286]. Patt further discloses wherein the obtaining (i.e., obtaining blockchain data associated with the token ID) includes identifying one or more entities that possess the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., identifying owners of the NFT) by querying a blockchain network (i.e., blockchain computing system).).
Regarding claims 8 and 28: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1 and 21. As indicated above, Patt discloses outputting (i.e., providing for display) event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the token ID). However, Patt does not explicitly disclose wherein the event data includes transaction data associated with use of the at least one nonfungible token as part of a blockchain network.
Bacon, on the other hand, further teaches wherein the event data includes transaction data associated with use of the at least one nonfungible token as part of a blockchain network (See at least Bacon [0037-0038; 0083]. Bacon teaches wherein the event data (i.e., blockchain data associated with the NFT) includes transaction data (e.g., an NFT identifier, the wallet address involved, the merchant associated with the access condition, time and data information, product and/or service data associated with the access condition, and other such data regarding usage of the NFT to satisfy a gating condition) associated with use of the at least one nonfungible token (i.e., use of the NFT) as part of a blockchain network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bacon into Patt’s method which outputs event data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to assess whether the NFT has been previously used and, if so, how many times and for what purposes (Bacon 0084]).
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patt in view of Bacon, as applied above, and further in view of Jakobsson et al. (US 2023/0055618 A1) (hereinafter “Jakobsson”).
Regarding claims 6 and 26: The combination of Patt and Bacon discloses the invention in Claims 1 and 21. As indicated above, Patt discloses querying a blockchain network using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token for event data, obtaining the event data, and outputting the event data for receipt by the originating device. However, Patt does not explicitly disclose wherein the event data describes demographics associated an entity that possesses the at least one nonfungible token.
Jakobsson, on the other hand, teaches wherein the event data describes demographics associated an entity that possesses the at least one nonfungible token (See at least Jakobsson [0122; 0134; 0205; 0355; 0392 “tokens and/or wallets may be used to perform actions including but not limited to assessing demographics for tokens. The first token may generate a demographic characterization of the other tokens (i.e., of the second token and the third token) and perform actions that depend on demographic characterizations”; 0394]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jakobsson into Patt’s method which queries for event data associated with nonfungible tokens, obtains the event data, and outputs the event data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow originators of NFTs to use reports to learn what groups of users, expressed in terms of their demographics, like their NFT content (Jakobsson [0355]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant identifies technical challenges cited in the Specification including an amount of data to be maintained and shared, how to control access to the data, and proprietary techniques often encountered in the real world that are used to manage data storage. Amendment, p. 9. Applicant concludes that the claimed features address these technical challenges through a specific technical solution. Amendment, pp. 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner fails to find any limitations/features in the claimed invention that pertain to the amount of data maintained and/or shared. While the claimed invention searches a registry and a blockchain network for particular data, there is no indication that claimed invention alters how this data is maintained and/or shared. As per the controlling of access to the data, again the claimed invention fails to provide any indication that it offers some sort of improvement to the manner data is accessed. Rather, the claimed invention receives a query and provides results based on that query. As per the proprietary techniques used to manage data storage, again the claimed invention fails to recite any limitations/features that address this/these issue(s). Examiner acknowledges that the claimed invention is using a particular database, and/or network, to acquire data, however the use of these databases/networks is conventional in nature. That is, the claimed invention searches/queries the database/network for a particular data element (e.g., based on a query, based on an identifier) and receives results for the search/query. At best, the claimed invention is applying the abstract idea in a particular environment (e.g., an NFT and/or blockchain environment), however there is no indication the claimed invention provides a technical solution to data stored via proprietary techniques.
Applicant argues that “the claims recite a specific technical architecture that: (1) maintains a metadata registry separate from the blockchain to enable efficient searching of NFT characteristics; (2) uses search results to identify specific NFTs; (3) queries the blockchain network directly using the NFT identification to obtain event data describing use of the NFT by possessing entities; and (4) outputs this event data to the originating device.” Amendment, p. 11. Applicant concludes that “This architecture changes how information flows between the metadata registry, blockchain network, and originating device.” Id. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner initially notes that the claimed invention is not maintaining a metadata registry, as suggest by applicant’s remarks. Rather, the claimed invention is merely searching the registry. Additionally, there is no “flow” between the metadata registry, the blockchain network and the originating device. Rather, the originating device queries the processing device for a result and the processing device receives that result from the processing device. The originating device does not communicate with (i.e., have flow with) the metadata registry or the blockchain network. Likewise, the metadata registry and the blockchain network do not communicate with each other. Furthermore, merely using different databases (e.g., a registry, a blockchain) to acquiring information is not indicative of a practical application or an inventive concept.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Applicant argues that Patt's "events" are minting events involved in NFT creation and not events describing the use of NFTs by entities possessing the NFT's. Amendment, pp. 13-15. Examiner agrees. Examiner contends that Patt discloses querying a blockchain network using the identification of the at least one nonfungible token for event data, obtaining the event data, and outputting the event data for receipt by the originating device. However, Examiner acknowledges that Patt differs from the claimed invention because Patt does not explicitly disclose where the event data describes use of the at least one nonfungible token by one or more entities possessing the at least one nonfungible token, as recited in the amended claim(s). Examiner has added an additional reference, Bacon, to the prior art rejection to teach this particular feature. Examiner contends that the combination of Patt and Bacon renders the independent claims obvious.
Applicant argues that the event data output by Patt is not event data describing use of the NFT by possessing entities. Amendment, pp. 15-16. Examiner agrees. While Patt explicitly discloses the outputting of event data, Examiner acknowledges that the outputted event data in Patt differs from that in the claimed invention. Examiner has added an additional reference, Bacon, to the prior art rejection to teach this particular feature. Examiner contends that the combination of Patt and Bacon renders the independent claims obvious.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Benedetto et al. (US 2023/0182025 A1) discloses where NFT data is generated for each game asset available in a video game. The NFT data of a game asset maintains a history of use of the game asset using the blockchain concept. The use of the game asset in the video game is monitored and when it is determined that the game asset was used to achieve a significant event, a distinct block capturing details of such use is generated for the game asset and added to the blockchain. Maintaining details of use of the digital asset in significant events may be to keep the cost of maintaining the NFT low. The NFT maintained for the game asset provides sufficient details for verifying the authenticity of the game asset, provides past use history, past/present ownership of the game asset, attributes possessed by the game asset, and attributes of the game asset used in the video game to achieve one or more significant events. Benedetto [0034].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 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.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
1 Note that applicant’s specification at 0078 states that “’Computer-readable storage media’ refers to media and/or devices that enable persistent and/or non-transitory storage,” and as such excludes “signals per se.”
Prosecution Insights