Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a sensing unit and a comparison unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the original image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0159272) in view of Prideaux-Ghee et al. (US 2018/0336729) in view of Fersund et al. (US 2023/0005230).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) discloses a non-fungible token (NFT) information providing system (Kim, [0025], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a structure of a non-fungible token (NFT) market system”) comprising:
a first server (Kim, [0007], “a broadcasting station server”);
a virtual image (Kim, [0051], “A user may play broadcast content provided by the broadcasting station server 30 corresponding to a channel selected through the TV platform 10”);
a second server configured to store NFT information (Kim, [0044], “the NFT market server 20 may transmit information related to digital products with respect to at least one piece of broadcast content to the TV platform 10”); and
a display device configured to communicate with a first server and the second server (Kim, [0038], “an NFT market server 20, a broadcasting station server 30, and a TV platform 10”. Fig. 1), wherein the display device comprises:
a display unit configured to display the virtual image and the NFT information (Kim, [0159], “as presented in the NFT purchase page accessed screen 700 of FIG. 7, the NFT purchase page may include various information related to an NFT for a digital product corresponding to the NFT drop object 600”);
though Kim teaches an NFT object (Kim, [0154], “output an NFT drop object 600”);
Kim does not expressly disclose “a sensing unit configured to sense the NFT object”;
Prideaux-Ghee et al. (hereinafter Prideaux) discloses a sensing unit configured to sense an object (Prideaux, [0036], “The camera that captures the image may be a still camera or a video camera”. In addition, in paragraph [0041], “process 200 identifies the object instance in the captured image”);
a comparison unit comprising an image comparison processor (Prideaux, [0039], “The camera that captures the image may be a still camera or a video camera”. In addition, in paragraph [0064], “A mobile device 404 may include one or more processing devices 405 (e.g., microprocessors)”. The comparison unit is implemented as function executed by a processor) and configured to determine information corresponding to the object (Prideaux, [0052], “information in the DT relating to an object or part at that point is identified. The user may be prompted, and specify, whether the part, a group of parts, or the entire object is being selected. The information is retrieved from the DT and is output (206) for rendering on a graphical user interface as part of AR content that may contain all or part of the original image”) using image comparison algorithm implemented by the image comparison processor (Prideaux, [0039], “The AR system may compare information from the captured image to the stored information or a stored image. Comparison may be performed on a mobile device or on a remote computer. The result of the comparison may identify the object”. In addition, in paragraph [0064], “A mobile device 404 may include one or more processing devices 405 (e.g., microprocessors)”. The comparison unit is implemented as function executed by a processor); and
a display unit configured to display the virtual image and the information (Prideaux, [0052], “information in the DT relating to an object or part at that point is identified. The user may be prompted, and specify, whether the part, a group of parts, or the entire object is being selected. The information is retrieved from the DT and is output (206) for rendering on a graphical user interface as part of AR content that may contain all or part of the original image”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display Kim’s image and related NFT information using Prideaux’s augmented reality display. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing users to view the NFT in a real-world context.
Kim as modified by Prideaux does not expressly disclose “the first server configured to generate the virtual image”;
Fersund et al. (hereinafter Fersund) discloses a server configured to generate a virtual image (Fersund, [0038], “The render server 130 is a server which is used to render the three-dimensional models and apply textures using one or more shaders”. In addition, in paragraph [0088], “The rendered object may then be transmitted to that device (if necessary)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s server to incorporate the image-generating functionality of Fersund’s render server. The motivation for doing so would have been enhancing security to prevent unauthorized copying.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the display unit displays the NFT information with a second image corresponding to the NFT object (Kim, Fig. 7);
Kim as modified by Prideaux with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses an augmented reality (AR) image (Prideaux, [0035], “uses the DT to augment actual graphics, such as images or video, is shown in FIG. 2”. Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses an original image (Kim, [0160], “a digital product 720”); the second server (Kim, [0044], “the NFT market server 20 may transmit information related to digital products with respect to at least one piece of broadcast content to the TV platform 10”); the NFT object (Kim, [0040], “The NFT Marketplace is a virtual space in which NFTs for digital products may be sold or purchased”); determines the NFT information corresponding to the original image on the basis of the original image (Kim, [0160], “the NFT purchase page may include a digital product 720 corresponding to the NFT drop object 600. In addition, information of a current owner (an NFT owner name) of an NFT for the corresponding digital product 720 may be included. In addition, information about history in which ownership of the corresponding digital product 720 is changed may be included. In addition, information about a price of the NFT for the digital product 720 may be included”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses compares an original image to determine whether the original image is similar to the object (Prideaux, [0039], “The AR system may compare information from the captured image to the stored information or a stored image. Comparison may be performed on a mobile device or on a remote computer. The result of the comparison may identify the object”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses image stored in a server (Fersund, [0036], “The data server 120 is used to store three-dimensional models, two-dimensional images (from various perspectives, and any textures associated with the various three-dimensional models”).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a mode (Kim, Fig. 7); the NFT information is displayed when an image corresponding to the NFT object is selected (Kim, [0157], “when the user has selected the NFT drop object 600 output onto the display unit 151, the control unit 180 of the TV platform 10 may access an address of an NFT purchase page corresponding to the NFT drop object 600 to display a web page in which an NFT for a digital product corresponding to the NFT drop object 600 may be purchased, i.e., an NFT purchase page”. In addition, in paragraph [0160], “the NFT purchase page may include a digital product 720 corresponding to the NFT drop object 600. In addition, information of a current owner (an NFT owner name) of an NFT for the corresponding digital product 720 may be included. In addition, information about history in which ownership of the corresponding digital product 720 is changed may be included. In addition, information about a price of the NFT for the digital product 720 may be included”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified by Prideaux with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses concurrently displayed in real time (Prideaux, [0059], “the AR system obtains the DT for an object and uses the DT to generate graphics or text to superimpose onto an image of an object”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0159272) in view of Prideaux-Ghee et al. (US 2018/0336729) in view of Fersund et al. (US 2023/0005230), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Beltrami (US 2025/0356446).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches image of the NFT object (Kim, [0160], “a digital product 720 corresponding to the NFT drop object 600”); transaction information about the NFT object (Kim, [0099], “The transaction information may be transaction information including a transaction signature for verifying the user, that is, a signed transaction”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses an original server configured to store image (Fersund, [0036], “The data server 120 is used to store three-dimensional models, two-dimensional images (from various perspectives, and any textures associated with the various three-dimensional models”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund does not expressly disclose “an exchange server configured to store”;
Beltrami discloses an exchange server configured to store transaction information (Beltrami, [0010], “a blockchain server, at least one blockchain client which may make requests to update a blockchain, and at least one blockchain node (wherein one physical entity may take on more than one of these roles). The blockchain server may store the blockchain ledger, which may comprise an immutable record of transactions (i.e., ‘records’ or ‘blockchain records’) comprising information received from a blockchain client”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Beltrami’s blockchain server into Kim’s server to enable storage and management of blockchain transaction information within Kim’s server. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling reliable tracking of ownership and related operations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0159272) in view of Prideaux-Ghee et al. (US 2018/0336729) in view of Fersund et al. (US 2023/0005230), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Spivack et al. (US 2022/0366061).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the first server (Kim, [0007], “a broadcasting station server”) and the NFT object (Kim, [0087], “at least one NFT drop object”), and the display unit displays a first image (Kim, Fig. 7), displays the NFT information with the first image (Kim, Fig. 7); Kim as modified by Prideaux with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses render object to generate a first image (Prideaux, [0028], “rendered at an appropriate location over the image of the loader”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund does not expressly disclose “a virtual reality (VR) image”;
Spivack et al. (hereinafter Spivack) discloses a virtual reality (VR) image (Spivack, [0118], “An NFT can be or represent an associated virtual object such as a virtual object in an augmented reality, virtual reality, virtual environment, game or virtual marketplace environment”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display Kim’s NFT image and information using Spivack’s virtual reality system. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing a virtual reality presentation of the NFT content.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0159272) in view of Prideaux-Ghee et al. (US 2018/0336729) in view of Fersund et al. (US 2023/0005230), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Bolcer et al. (US 2023/0342758).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses an owner of the NFT (Kim, [0160], “information of a current owner (an NFT owner name)”) and a type of the NFT (Kim, [0154], “when the relevant digital product is a player card including a handwritten signature of the specific player, the NFT drop object 600 may include an image related to the handwritten signature of the specific player”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund does not expressly disclose “a stake of the NFT”;
Bolcer et al. (hereinafter Bolcer) discloses a stake of NFT (Bolcer, [0020], “The content providers 101 can stake their NFTs. Staking locks up an NFT for some period of time in exchange for the possibility of revenue as calculated by a value ranking algorithm in the library generator 105. Revenue and revenue splits may be determined from actual usage. The content providers 101 can stake an NFT (available for monetization) or unstake an NFT”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s NFT market server to include Bolcer’s NFT staking functionality. The motivation for doing so would have been ensuring transactions and stake records are securely stored.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0159272) in view of Prideaux-Ghee et al. (US 2018/0336729) in view of Fersund et al. (US 2023/0005230), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Jurat et al. (US 2024/0070305).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the NFT object to determine the NFT information corresponding to the NFT object (Kim, [0160], “the NFT purchase page may include a digital product 720 corresponding to the NFT drop object 600. In addition, information of a current owner (an NFT owner name) of an NFT for the corresponding digital product 720 may be included. In addition, information about history in which ownership of the corresponding digital product 720 is changed may be included. In addition, information about a price of the NFT for the digital product 720 may be included”);
Kim as modified by Prideaux and Fersund does not expressly disclose “an artificial intelligence model configured to machine-learn”;
Jurat et al. (hereinafter Jurat) discloses an artificial intelligence model configured to machine-learn training data (Jurat, [0044], “Machine learning module 209 may implement various machine learning techniques, e.g., decision tree learning, association rule learning, neural network (e.g., recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks)…machine learning module 209 may leverage one or more classification models trained to classify the training data and/or one or more prediction models trained to predict an outcome based on the training data”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the concept of Jurat’s machine learning model training method using Kim’s NFT objects as input data. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling the model to learn features of the NFTs for tasks such as authentication or encoding into blockchain storage.
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Prideaux, Fersund and Jurat with the same motivation from claim 8 discloses a deep neural network (Jurat, [0075], “a deep learning network such as Deep Neural Networks (DNN), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RCN), probabilistic models such as Bayesian Networks and Graphical Models”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611