Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 13, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on October 13, 2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20250106 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 19 are objected to because they recite “the NFT are virtual digital currencies.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “the NFTs are virtual digital currencies.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are objected to because they recite “through the network (108).” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “through a network (108).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 19 are objected to because they recite “based on a value associated each of the plurality of copies of the NFTs, wherein each of the respective sequence number is associated.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “based on a value associated with each of the plurality of copies of the NFTs, wherein each of the respective sequence numbers is associated.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “collection of initial joining fee.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “collection of an initial joining fee.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “Compute.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “compute.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 2, 5-6, 10, 12, and 15-16 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “the NFTs comprise at least one of: a utility asset, an investment asset, and unique digital items, and wherein the unique digital items comprise at least one of: a media file, a video, an audio, an image, and an art work.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it contradicts claims 1 and 11, respectively, which recite “the NFT are virtual digital currencies whose identity, authenticity, and traceability are tamper-proof.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “the NFTs comprise at least an investment asset.”
Claims 5 and 15 recite “the sale proceed of the second market.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the sale proceed of the first market” or to “a sale proceed of the second market.” For purposes of applying the prior art, Examiner will interpret as “a sale proceed of the second market.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first computing device and the one or more second computing devices are communicatively coupled to at least a server through the network.” There is lack of antecedent basis for “the first computing device”, “the one or more second computing devices”, and “the network.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “wherein a first computing device and one or more second computing devices are communicatively coupled to at least a server through a network.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “a range of the sequence number is indirectly proportional to a value of an NFT of the plurality of copies of the NFTs.” Claims 1 and 11, respectively, already recite “wherein each of the respective sequence number is associated with a price and the respective sequence number decreases with increase in the price.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Please see revised rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights