DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 09, 2019 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on September 18, 2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: In view of this, under Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant's amended independent claim 1 recites, for example, "circuitry configured to issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain, acquire information on a user who own the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed." (emphasis added). Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B, if the claim is eligible at Prong One of Step 2A, the eligibility analysis concludes, and there is no need to analyze additional elements under the eligibility analysis.
Without acquiescing in any way to the Examiner's grounds of rejection, Applicant hereby amends the claims as noted above in an effort to expedite prosecution by clarifying the patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully submits that the present recitations of at least amended independent claim 1 amount to significantly more than merely an abstract idea such as a mental steps or processes, especially in view of the specifically recited technical solution directed toward a particular configuration of the various technical elements set forth by the particular claim recitations.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegations noted above, and Applicant submits that the claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
That is, Applicant submits that the presently recited claims, taken as a whole, recite significant claim elements that cannot be satisfied by mental steps or processes, are not merely abstract ideas as defined by case law, and the claimed subject matter relates to a specific improvement in a computer-related technology including technical structural elements. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are determined to broadly relate to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, there are sufficient recitations of claim elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself. See Applicant’s Arguments pages 9-13.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) which is a synthesis of the case law of Alice and its progeny. Additionally, the reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Final Rejection, dated 01/05/2026 (hereinafter, “Office Action”).
While Applicant has amended the claim to recite additional subject matter, for example, the amended claim limitation recites: the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed, further describe the abstract idea of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT), acquiring data associated with the NFT, and transmitting data associated with the NFT. Additionally, the system limitations, e.g., a processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2019 PEG, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed below under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Applicant argues: Further, in another relevant decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Finjan, the CAFC determined that claims directed to a non-obvious improvement in computer functionality are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Applicant submits that the particular elements recited by independent claim 1 relate to an improvement to computer functionality itself, in that they are directed to a specific implementation of the recited solution to a problem in the relevant field.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has also "oversimplified the [technical] component of the claims and downplayed the invention's benefits." See Enfish. Moreover, similar to Desjardins, the presently claimed invention provides a specific technical solution to a particular problem in the art. Thus, the specific practical application of the claimed invention demonstrates an enhancement to the functioning of a computer-related technology and is not merely directed to an abstract idea (see page 13-14).
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps.
Furthermore, claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to storing data, perform search query and perform access control. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
Applicant argues: Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has also "oversimplified the [technical] component of the claims and downplayed the invention's benefits." See Enfish. Moreover, similar to Desjardins, the presently claimed invention provides a specific technical solution to a particular problem in the art. Thus, the specific practical application of the claimed invention demonstrates an enhancement to the functioning of a computer-related technology and is not merely directed to an abstract idea.
The presently recited claim elements provide a particular solution to a particular problem in the art, and the claimed solution is not appreciated in the prior art. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claimed invention is novel and nonobvious, and the deficiencies of the cited art discussed below provide an additional indication that the recited claim elements are not routine or conventional in the relevant field. Therefore, Applicant submits that the elements recited by independent claim 1 relate to an improvement at the time of invention to computer functionality itself, and so the claims are directed to subject matter that clearly provides significantly more than any underlying abstract idea.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to storing data, perform search query and perform access control. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply, issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain; acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites, issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain; acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to issue data, acquire data, transmit data and wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (e.g., issue data, acquire data, transmit data and wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of releasing rewards (i.e., issue data, acquire data, transmit data and wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition). There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology.
Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, this analysis is the same as was laid out in the Office Action. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims also fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) fail to recite any new additional elements. As noted in the Office Action, the additional elements serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment. Therefore, the claims limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO). See detail rejection below.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant's amendment to the claims.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-15 and 18 are directed to a processing device, claim 16 is directed to a method, and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claims recite an abstract idea of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT), acquiring data associated with the NFT, and transmitting data associated with the NFT. Specifically, the claims recite “issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain; acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored […] prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data (e.g., ticket) needed to complete a transaction to the parties. Additionally, a processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of “issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain; acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 16 and 17 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT), acquiring data associated with the NFT, and transmitting data associated with the NFT. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of “issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain; acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT, and transmit a ticket associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information, wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT), acquiring data associated with the NFT, and transmitting data associated with the NFT. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims
Claim 2 recites: wherein the circuitry acquires personal identification information managed in a blockchain as the information on a user who owns the issued NFT.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the circuitry acquires information for verifying identity confirmation information of a user registered in association with the personal identification information, and wherein the circuitry transmits the ticket associated with the NFT to the user when an identity of the user is verified.
Claim 4 recites: wherein, when the identity of the user who owns the NFT is verified, the circuitry is further configured to transmit, to the user, preliminarily registered identity confirmation information of the user or information indicating that the identity of the user has been verified.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the circuitry issues the NFT in a private blockchain in which only a node permitted by an administrator can participate.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the circuitry issues the NFT after defining a method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT in a smart contract of the blockchain.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to define, as the method of transfer, at least one of a price in a case where the user distributes the ticket or a price to be returned to a person related to the ticket in a case where the ticket is distributed.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to define, as the method of transfer, at least one of a period during which the user can distribute the ticket or a condition of a third party to which the ticket can be distributed.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to refer to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain, and wherein the circuitry transmits the ticket associated with the NFT to the user when it is verified that the transaction history conforms with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a ticket use request, refer, when the ticket use request is acquired, to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain, and transmit, when a transaction history conforming with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT is verified, the information that proves validity of the ticket associated with the NFT.
Claim 11 recites: determine, when ownership of the issued NFT is transferred, whether or not to offer a benefit related to transfer of the ownership to a transfer destination, based on information on the transfer destination.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a history of actions of the transfer destination, and wherein the circuitry determines whether or not to offer the benefit related to transfer of the ownership to the transfer destination, based on the history of actions of the transfer destination.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the circuitry acquires, as the history of actions of the transfer destination, a state of participation in service or an event related to the ticket or a charge amount in a past, and wherein the circuitry determines whether or not to offer the benefit related to transfer of the ownership to the transfer destination, based on the state of participation in the service or the event related to the ticket or the charge amount in the past.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire information on a benefit presented from service related to the ticket, and transmit the benefit to the user who has transmitted the ticket based on the information on the benefit.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit at least one of an asset that is allowed to be used in the service related to the ticket or a voucher that is allowed to be used in the service related to the ticket to the user as the benefit.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the one or more users are stored in the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium according to at least one of a use time or a number of times of use of an application prior to the predetermined period.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18 further describe the abstract idea of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT), acquiring data associated with the NFT, and transmitting data associated with the NFT. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al. (US 20210357893 A1, “KANG”) Alternatively, in view of Madhu Vijayan (US 20200005284 A1, “Vijayan”) further in view of Tai et al (US 20230334492 A1, “Tai”).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17: KANG discloses: An information processing device comprising: circuitry configured to
issue a non fungible token (NFT) in a blockchain (KANG [0068]: the transaction nonce or ID is used to confirm payment and to ultimately issue a non-fungible token (e.g., an actual live event ticket) into a wallet 202 of a user (e.g., a fan); [0093]: As tickets are “tokenized” on the blockchain 110, they may appear as digital representations in a user's electronic wallet (e.g., wallet 202 in FIG. 2A). “Tokenized”, as taught herein, may refer to the digital representation of the live event ticket or live event asset within a smart contract. When a newly created digital ticket is created, this may be referred to as “minting” a new token. “Minting” may refer to the act of newly creating a digital ticket or tokenized asset via a smart contract. For example, a baseball game ticket that is not on the platform yet may be “minted” and turned into a newly created digital ticket is represented on the platform as a non-fungible token), (see abstract, paragraphs [0068], [0093] and [0019] and Fig. 2);
acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT (KANG [0052]: The platform 100 may be directed to an event ticket sales system and related methods that convert a traditional paper or electronic ticket into an immutable digital asset that can only be surrendered or redeemed by an authorized assignee or owner; [0053]: the wallet 202 of the system 200, as shown in FIG. 2A, may be a software component, which stores cryptographic key pairs and that may be used to interact with smart contracts for tracking ownership, transferring, buying and selling of digital tokens on the platform 100 (e.g., ERC-721 non-fungible tokens)), (see paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and Fig. 2); and
transmit a ticket (e.g., an actual live event ticket) associated with the NFT to the user based on the acquired information (KANG [0068]: the transaction nonce or ID is used to confirm payment and to ultimately issue a non-fungible token (e.g., an actual live event ticket) into a wallet 202 of a user (e.g., a fan)), wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0019]: The method may include one or more of the following steps: creating a live ticket event that corresponds to a specific live event, at a specific date and time and at a specific face-value price; specifying the rules regarding how revenues for the sale or resale of said live event ticket are distributed among multiple parties; codifying such rules in the at least one smart contract deployed on the public blockchain, which corresponds to said live event ticket; [0047]: In an exemplary embodiment, a rule set may be created by the event originators to control the sale, purchase, transfer, etc. of the non-fungible token by the event originator. In an exemplary embodiment, the event originator can be the original artist, the promoter, the production company, the producer, and/or some related party tasked with creation of a live ticketing event), (see paragraphs [0068], [0093], [0018]-[0019], [0047], [0049] and Fig. 2).
As indicated above, KANG discloses, acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT.
Alternatively, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Vijayan to disclose:
acquire information on a user who owns the issued NFT (Vijayan [0105]: When the user wishes to purchase an NFT using fungible tokens, the user's media wallet application can request authentication of the NFT directly based upon the public key of the content creator and/or indirectly based upon transaction records within the NFT blockchain. As discussed above, minted NFTs are signed by a content creator and an administrator of the NFT blockchain. In addition, a user can verify the authenticity of a particular NFT without the assistance of entities that minted the NFT by verifying that the transaction records involving the NFT within the NFT blockchain are consistent with the various royalty payment transactions required to occur in conjunction with transfer of ownership of the NFT by the smart contract underlying the NFT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KANG with Vijayan to include well-known functions of NFT and blockchain, such as verifying an owner of the NFT to enhance transaction security and authenticate the NFT owner.
As indicated above, KANG discloses creating a live ticket event that corresponds to a specific live event, at a specific date and time and at a specific face-value price (see paragraph [0019]).
KANG does not specifically disclose: a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed.
Tai discloses: wherein the acquired information on the user indicates a condition that a transfer destination of the issued NFT is limited to one or more users stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium prior to a predetermined period during which the ticket can be distributed (e.g., select group of users to purchase tickets until the expiration of the deadline) (Tai [0199]: In some examples, the method includes determining whether the request to purchase at least one of the plurality of tickets meets the condition(s) defined in the smart contract associated with the ticket at block 1611. For example, the sales service 1510 can determine if the conditions defined in the smart contract associated with a ticket sale are met. For example, the conditions might only permit a select group of users to purchase tickets until the expiration of the deadline, and the ticket sales service can ensure that the user account purchasing the tickets meets these criteria. In another example, the conditions might include the user account having a digital wallet to enable transactions on a blockchain; [0155]: That is, the payment service servers can determine whether the blockchain selected or otherwise determined is the same blockchain as the blockchain that is currently holding the NFT (e.g., in a digital wallet associated therewith); [0195]: FIG. 16 illustrates an example method 1600 for configuring a ticket sales campaign that associates conditions upon sales and resales of tickets; [0197]: In some examples, the campaign is configured to issue a ticket from the plurality of tickets as an NFT associated with a smart contract. The smart contract can include conditions; [0188]: Additionally or alternatively, sales campaign service 1508 can be used to create restrictions or conditions related to the resales of tickets. In examples where tickets are sold or managed using NFTs, the sales campaign service 1508 can be used to configure smart contracts to be associated with the NFTs), (see paragraphs [0064] and [0148] and Fig. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of KANG with Vijayan with Tai to include well-known function for tickets sales, such as, configuring a ticket sales campaign that associates conditions to a predetermined period to enhance and control tickets sales functionalities and to enhance user experience.
Regarding claim 2: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry acquires personal identification information managed in a blockchain as the information on a user who owns the issued NFT (KANG [0012]: For example, in an embodiment utilizing a fully decentralized blockchain, the identity of a user and/or payment information may be authenticated using blockchain protocols and smart contracts), (see abstract, paragraphs [0030] and [0048] and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 2,
wherein the circuitry acquires information for verifying identity confirmation information of a user registered in association with the personal identification information (see abstract, paragraphs [0012], [0030] and [0048] and Fig. 8), and
wherein the circuitry transmits the ticket associated with the NFT to the user when an identity of the user is verified (see paragraphs [0068] and [0093] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 3,
wherein, when the identity of the user who owns the NFT is verified, the circuitry is further configured to transmit, to the user, preliminarily registered identity confirmation information of the user or information indicating that the identity of the user has been verified (KANG [0068]: According to an exemplary embodiment, a nonce is a verification of a transaction. A nonce may be used in general cryptographic results. For example, in FIG. 2A, the transaction nonce or ID is used to confirm payment and to ultimately issue a non-fungible token (e.g., an actual live event ticket) into a wallet 202 of a user (e.g., a fan)), (see paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to claim language “when the identity of the user who owns the NFT is verified, the transmission unit transmits”. This is conditional language limitation. The circuitry is further configured to transmit, only gets performed when the identity of the user who owns the NFT is verified, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. See MPEP § 2103 IC.
Regarding claim 6: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry issues the NFT after defining a method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT in a smart contract of the blockchain (KANG [0077]: The rules defined by the ticket “minter” for each ticket are encoded as “smart contracts” 104 and deployed onto the blockchain 110. The “Rules” may include but are not limited to the following), (see paragraphs [0065] and [0077]-[0086] and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 6,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to define, as the method of transfer, at least one of a price in a case where the user distributes the ticket or a price to be returned to a person related to the ticket in a case where the ticket is distributed (see paragraphs [0065] and [0077]-[0086] and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 6,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to define, as the method of transfer, at least one of a period during which the user can distribute the ticket or a condition of a third party to which the ticket can be distributed (see paragraphs [0065] and [0077]-[0086] and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 9: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 6,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to refer to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain, and wherein the circuitry transmits the ticket associated with the NFT to the user when it is verified that the transaction history conforms with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT (KANG [0103]: In an exemplary embodiment, all parties may monitor the comprehensive transaction history in real-time to validate ticket ownership. In some embodiments, revenue distribution may also be viewed or monitored. According to an exemplary use case of the system 100, entries to the blockchain 110 may be continuously added as new transactions occurs. For example, as each new event is created (e.g., a new sporting event or concert), as each tickets/token is purchased, or as an ownership interest of a current ticket/token is transferred, a new entry to the blockchain 110 is added. In doing so, the system 100 provides an authenticated, secure, public, and decentralized platform for the buying and/or selling of live tickets).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to claim language “when it is verified that the transaction history conforms with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT”. This is conditional language limitation. The transmits the ticket, only gets performed when it is verified that the transaction history conforms with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. See MPEP § 2103 IC.
Regarding claim 10: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the acquisition unit acquires a ticket use request transmitted by the transmission unit, and
wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a ticket use request, refer, when the ticket use request is acquired, to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain, and transmit, when a transaction history conforming with a rule of the method of transfer of the ticket associated with the NFT is verified, the information that proves validity of the ticket associated with the NFT (see paragraphs [0056], [0065] and [0103]).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to claim language “when the ticket use request is acquired, to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain”. This is conditional language limitation. The refers to a transaction history of the NFT in the blockchain, only gets performed when the ticket use request is acquired, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. See MPEP § 2103 IC.
Regarding claim 11: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising
determine, when ownership of the issued NFT is transferred, whether or not to offer a benefit related to transfer of the ownership to a transfer destination, based on information on the transfer destination (KANG [0088]: In yet another feature of the OTM, when tickets, as taught herein, go “on sale”, each ticket may be distributed algorithmically based on user ticket preferences, fan score (e.g., how likely each fan is a real fan, and not a bot and/or scalper), rewards points, order submitted, etc.), (see paragraphs [0048], [0088] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 12: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 11,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a history of actions of the transfer destination (see paragraphs [0048], [0088] and [0103]), and
wherein the circuitry determines whether or not to offer the benefit related to transfer of the ownership to the transfer destination, based on the history of actions of the transfer destination (see paragraphs [0048], [0088] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 13: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 12,
wherein the circuitry acquires, as the history of actions of the transfer destination, a state of participation in service or an event related to the ticket or a charge amount in a past (see paragraphs [0048], [0088] and [0103]), and
wherein the circuitry determines whether or not to offer the benefit related to transfer of the ownership to the transfer destination, based on the state of participation in the service or the event related to the ticket or the charge amount in the past (see paragraphs [0048], [0088] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 14: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 11,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire information on a benefit presented from service related to the ticket (see paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0048], [0088] and [0103]), and
transmit the benefit to the user who has transmitted the ticket based on the information on the benefit (KANG [0047]: In an exemplary embodiment, a rule set may be created by the event originators to control the sale, purchase, transfer, etc. of the non-fungible token by the event originator. In an exemplary embodiment, the event originator can be the original artist, the promoter, the production company, the producer, and/or some related party tasked with creation of a live ticketing event), (see paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0048], [0088] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 15: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 14,
wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit at least one of an asset that is allowed to be used in the service related to the ticket or a voucher that is allowed to be used in the service related to the ticket to the user as the benefit (KANG [0060]: The system 100 is a combination of decentralized infrastructure that includes identity verification (e.g., buyer or seller of a live event ticket), and security and/or authentication features to provide integrity to a sale of a live event ticket from end-to-end (e.g., the original point of sale and creation to the final sale to be used for admission to the live event); [0093]: As tickets are “tokenized” on the blockchain 110, they may appear as digital representations in a user's electronic wallet (e.g., wallet 202 in FIG. 2A). “Tokenized”, as taught herein, may refer to the digital representation of the live event ticket or live event asset within a smart contract. When a newly created digital ticket is created, this may be referred to as “minting” a new token. “Minting” may refer to the act of newly creating a digital ticket or tokenized asset via a smart contract. For example, a baseball game ticket that is not on the platform yet may be “minted” and turned into a newly created digital ticket is represented on the platform as a non-fungible token.), (see paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0048], [0088] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 18: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG further discloses: The information processing device according to claim 14,
wherein the one or more users are stored in the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium according to at least one of a use time or a number of times of use of an application prior to the predetermined period.
As indicated above, KANG discloses creating a live ticket event that corresponds to a specific live event, at a specific date and time and at a specific face-value price (see paragraph [0019]).
KANG does not specifically disclose: The information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the one or more users are stored in the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium according to at least one of a use time or a number of times of use of an application prior to the predetermined period.
Tai discloses: wherein the one or more users are stored in the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium according to at least one of a use time or a number of times of use of an application prior to the predetermined period (Tai [0199]: In some examples, the method includes determining whether the request to purchase at least one of the plurality of tickets meets the condition(s) defined in the smart contract associated with the ticket at block 1611. For example, the sales service 1510 can determine if the conditions defined in the smart contract associated with a ticket sale are met. For example, the conditions might only permit a select group of users to purchase tickets until the expiration of the deadline, and the ticket sales service can ensure that the user account purchasing the tickets meets these criteria. In another example, the conditions might include the user account having a digital wallet to enable transactions on a blockchain; [0155]: That is, the payment service servers can determine whether the blockchain selected or otherwise determined is the same blockchain as the blockchain that is currently holding the NFT (e.g., in a digital wallet associated therewith); [0195]: FIG. 16 illustrates an example method 1600 for configuring a ticket sales campaign that associates conditions upon sales and resales of tickets; [0197]: In some examples, the campaign is configured to issue a ticket from the plurality of tickets as an NFT associated with a smart contract. The smart contract can include conditions; [0188]: Additionally or alternatively, sales campaign service 1508 can be used to create restrictions or conditions related to the resales of tickets. In examples where tickets are sold or managed using NFTs, the sales campaign service 1508 can be used to configure smart contracts to be associated with the NFTs), (see paragraphs [0064] and [0148] and Fig. 16).
Examiner's Note: claim recites “at least one of a use time or a number of times of use of an application prior to the predetermined period” this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes data values, while the data values are not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of KANG with Vijayan with Tai to include well-known function for tickets sales, such as, configuring a ticket sales campaign that associates conditions to a predetermined period to enhance and control tickets sales functionalities and to enhance user experience.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al. (US 20210357893 A1, “KANG”) Alternatively, in view of Madhu Vijayan (US 20200005284 A1, “Vijayan”) in view of Tai et al (US 20230334492 A1, “Tai”), and further in view of Prakash et al. (US 20210287195 A1, “Prakash”).
Regarding claim 5: KANG, Vijayan and Tai, discloses the limitations shown above.
KANG doesn’t explicitly disclose; however, Vijayan discloses: The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry issues the NFT in a private blockchain in which only a node permitted by an administrator can participate (Vijayan [0010]: Systems and methods in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention utilize media wallet applications to address this issue head on by not only allowing users to opt-in or opt-out of sharing their consumption data, but actually reward them directly with fungible tokens and/or non-fungible tokens for their active participation. Users can either operate in Private mode, which blocks all access to their consumption data from outside parties. Or, the user can opt-in to sharing their data, and passively earn reward tokens from entities such as (but not limited to) their favorite brands and media content providers; [0082]: Content engagement platforms in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention can control the privacy of specific pieces of data with respect to particular entities in a manner that can be referred to as granting fine-grained permissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KANG, Vijayan and Tai to include well-known functions of NFT and blockchain, such as verifying an owner of the NFT to enhance transaction security and authenticate the NFT owner.
KANG doesn’t explicitly disclose; Alternatively, Prakash discloses: The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry issues the NFT in a private blockchain in which only a node permitted by an administrator can participate (Prakash [0101]: the storage of media and the creation and management of digital collectibles or NFTs. The storage of media preferably occurs in a public or private cloud (step S007), and the media is tokenized and stored in a private blockchain (5001)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of KANG, Vijayan and Tai with Prakash to include well-known functions of NFT and blockchain, such as utilizing a private blockchain to enhance data security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Schultz et al. (US 20200092364 A1) discloses, An example operation may include one or more of connecting, by a recipient node, to a blockchain network configured to store links to digital assets of an owner, selecting, by the recipient node, an asset from a ledger of the owner, executing, by the recipient node, a smart contract to determine a time frame of the asset use, executing, by the recipient node, a smart contract to download the asset to the recipient node, checking, by the recipient node, if the asset is downloaded successfully, and in response to the successful download of the asset, executing, by the recipient node, a smart contract to log an asset transfer transaction onto the blockchain.
SLIWKA et al. (US 20210082044 A1) discloses, method includes receiving a request to initiate a loan process that indicates a collateral item. The method also includes generating a collateral token corresponding to the collateral item. The method further includes instantiating a loan process smart contract instance that is configured to manage a loan process in accordance with a loan process workflow, wherein the loan process smart contract instance that is configured to instantiate a loan smart contract receives a loan agreement notification indicating one or more loan term parameters of a loan that was agreed to by a lender and the borrower and to manage repayment of a loan based on the one or more loan term parameters. The collateral token is locked in an escrow account stored on a distributed ledger until the loan is fully repaid or in a default state.
Borucki et al. (US 20170154284 A1) discloses, when a consumer carrying a device is automatically detected within a pre-defined and constrained space, ticket identifying information is automatically obtained from the device and relayed to a backend ticket redemption server. The ticket redemption server validates a ticket for the consumer from the ticket-identifying information and relays a confirmation to a ticket redemption agent's device and the consumer is checked-in for ingress onto a transportation system or into a venue destination of the consumer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights