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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: The USPTO's Section 101 Examples for Subject Matter Eligibility (Example 2), directed to a system for generating a composite web page that combines content from different websites, shows that claims for facilitating potential transactions do not automatically describe transactions themselves. In that example, the USPTO states that identifying “a system ‘useful in outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities,’ … does not recite a … longstanding commercial practice” as, despite the fact that outsourcing economic opportunities has long been an approach to commerce, the specific implementation “addresses a business challenge (retaining website visitors) that is particular to the Internet [and] is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” (USPTO's Section 101 Examples for Subject Matter Eligibility, Example 2)…. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office action does not consider the accompanying argument that (as in Example 2, above), regardless of whether (A) the claims disclose references to commerce-directed objects (e.g., commerce objects, transaction records); or (B) a general application can technically be implemented in a non-technical manner (i.e., standard outsourcing, standard ledger recordings) the specific implementations (i.e., e-commerce outsourcing, web3/blockchain-based distributed ledgers) are specifically computer-network directed problems. Applicant submits that structure used for the Example 2 claim includes “a computer store containing data,” and a “computer server [that] is coupled to the computer store.” (USPTO's Section 101 Examples for Subject Matter Eligibility, Example 2). Despite these components being equally if not more broad than the above claim limitations, the USPTO has acknowledged that the implementations are “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Applicant respectfully submits that the same applies here given that the focus of the claims are directed to delayed minting of non-fungible tokens based on characteristics of blockchain networks, while also allowing for pre-determined policies and content elements to govern the minted tokens. Therefore, for at least the same rationale as disclosed in Example 2, Applicant respectfully re-asserts that claim 1 does not recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” See Applicant’s Arguments page 2-5.
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 08/08/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”).
Furthermore, while Applicant has amended the claim to recite additional subject matter, for example, the amended claim limitations recite: when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT, further describe the abstract idea of generating, recording and minting a NFT. Furthermore, when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT, can be performed by using a pen and paper and/or that can be performed mentally. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Additionally, a network interface, a memory, a processor, at least one computing unit and a blockchain does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
Applicant further argues that, Applicant further submits that, under Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, claim 1 discloses an improvement to technology that is significantly more than any alleged fundamental economic principle. Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 PEG asks the Examiner to determine whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(a). Integration of judicial exceptions into practical applications typically depends on whether the use of the alleged judicial exception consists simply of “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” MPEP § 2106.05. As such, one category of invention that the MPEP acknowledges as a practical application includes those that are an improvement to technology or a technical field. MPEP § 2106.04(d). Meanwhile, Step 2B asks an Examiner to determine whether the “additional elements when viewed in combination may amount to significantly more than the exception,” typically through the addition of an “inventive concept.” MPEP § 2106.07(a). Like for Step 2A, Prong 2, the MPEP indicates that “[i]mprovements to any other technology or technical field” support an inventive-concept conclusion. MPEP § 2106.05. See Applicant’s Arguments pages 4-5.
The Examiner however, respectfully disagrees, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) also fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional claim elements are considered when determining whether the claim recites a practical application, such as a technological improvement, of the abstract idea. However, the claims fail to introduce any such additional elements. Again, a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT are not considered as additional claim elements. Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. And the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) fails to disclose, technical aspects/functions of the set of network expenditure. The claims fails to disclose, how the set of network expenditure determines or estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT. For example, in light of the originally-filed specification para [0315], the claims fails to disclose to determining minting cost and comparing them with thresholds. 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.
Furthermore, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) recite, a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT, would result in any improvement to the recited technology. 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 claims 1-20 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 1-20 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 1-10 are directed to a platform comprising a network interface, a memory, a processor, at least one computing unit and a blockchain, and claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of generating, recording and minting a NFT. Specifically, the claims recite “generate, using the network …, an instant NFT that is privately maintained, wherein the instant NFT: represents a concrete NFT to be minted at a later stage; and comprises an initial record, including: a first reference to a content element to be included in the concrete NFT; a second reference to at least one policy that will govern the concrete NFT; and a first timestamp, associated with a time of creation for the instant NFT; determine a modification to the initial record associated with the instant NFT, wherein the modification is: indicative of a transaction associated with the instant NFT; and associated with a second timestamp; and when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public … fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT on the public … using the network interface, wherein: minting the instant NFT comprises generating a concrete record for the concrete NFT based on the initial record; and the concrete NFT is minted to: have access to the content element; and be governed by the at least one policy”, 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 generating and recording data needed to complete a transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
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 network interface, a memory, a processor, at least one computing unit and a blockchain merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the network interface, memory, processor, at least one computing unit and blockchain perform(s) the steps or functions of “generate, using the network interface, an instant NFT that is privately maintained, wherein the instant NFT: represents a concrete NFT to be minted at a later stage; and comprises an initial record, including: a first reference to a content element to be included in the concrete NFT; a second reference to at least one policy that will govern the concrete NFT; and a first timestamp, associated with a time of creation for the instant NFT; determine a modification to the initial record associated with the instant NFT, wherein the modification is: indicative of a transaction associated with the instant NFT; and associated with a second timestamp; and when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT on the public blockchain using the network interface, wherein: minting the instant NFT comprises generating a concrete record for the concrete NFT based on the initial record; and the concrete NFT is minted to: have access to the content element; and be governed by the at least one policy.” 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.
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 network interface, a memory, a processor, at least one computing unit and a blockchain to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating, recording and minting a NFT. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the network interface, memory, processor, at least one computing unit and blockchain perform(s) the steps or functions of “generate, using the network interface, an instant NFT that is privately maintained, wherein the instant NFT: represents a concrete NFT to be minted at a later stage; and comprises an initial record, including: a first reference to a content element to be included in the concrete NFT; a second reference to at least one policy that will govern the concrete NFT; and a first timestamp, associated with a time of creation for the instant NFT; determine a modification to the initial record associated with the instant NFT, wherein the modification is: indicative of a transaction associated with the instant NFT; and associated with a second timestamp; and when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT on the public blockchain using the network interface, wherein: minting the instant NFT comprises generating a concrete record for the concrete NFT based on the initial record; and the concrete NFT is minted to: have access to the content element; and be governed by the at least one policy.” 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 generating, recording and minting a 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.
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 2 and 12 recite: wherein the instant NFT is stored until being minted into the concrete NFT, using at least one protection technique selected from the group consisting of: recording a value representing the initial record associated with the instant NFT on a private blockchain; digitally signing the instant NFT, using a private key associated with a certified public key, wherein a certification indicates a level of trust associated with a holder of the private key; recording the modification by time-stamping a collection that includes the instant NFT; and storing the instant NFT in a secure storage area, in a format that provides audit of access and additional modification.
Claims 3 and 13 recite: wherein recording the modification by time-stamping the collection comprises: generating a hash of edits in a hash chain, and incorporating a current hash value of the hash chain in a blockchain entry.
Claims 4 and 14 recite: wherein the given processor is further configured to: generate a plurality of instant NFTs, each associated with a distinct record from a plurality of records; time-stamp the plurality of records as a collection; generate a hash of the collection; and record the hash on a blockchain.
Claims 5 and 15 recite: wherein all modifications to the initial record are stored in a secure storage area, wherein the secure storage area is incorporated into a digital wallet.
Claims 6 and 16 recite: wherein: the concrete NFT indicates at least one public key associated with at least one recent owner, of the instant NFT; and minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT comprises specifying a most recent owner of the instant NFT, associated with the at least one public key, as an owner of the concrete NFT on the public blockchain.
Claims 7 and 17 recite: wherein: the record associated with the instant NFT is associated with an ownership that confers at least one right on an associated entity; and, the modification comprises a right modification of the at least one right.
Claims 8 and 18 recite: wherein minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT is performed in response to at least one of: receiving a request to produce the concrete NFT from a user; or detecting an occurrence of an additional triggering event based on a given policy specified for the concrete NFT.
Claims 9 and 19 recite: wherein the set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with the public blockchain comprise at least one financial expenditure associated with minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT.
Claims 10 and 20 recite: wherein the given processor is further configured to: generate a second instant NFT; determine a particular modification to an additional initial record associated with the second instant NFT, wherein the particular modification is indicative of a particular transaction associated with the second instant NFT; assess that the particular transaction is at least one selected from the group consisting of an accidental transaction and a fraudulent transaction; and revert the particular modification to the additional initial record associated with the second instant NFT.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of generating, recording and minting a 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardgrave et al. (US 20220108232 A1, “Hardgrave”) in view of Beaty et al. (US 20230306543 A1, “Beaty”) in view of Shapiro et al. (US 20220309491 A1, “Shapiro”) and further in view of KRISHNA et al. (US 20230169578 A1, “KRISHNA”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Hardgrave discloses: A non-fungible token (NFT) platform for processing tokens in a distributed computing environment, comprising:
a network interface (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011]);
a memory, storing instructions for minting an NFT (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011);
and at least one processor executing on at least one computing unit from a plurality of computing units in a distributed computing environment, wherein a given processor of the at least one processor is configured to perform the instructions to (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011):
generate, using the network interface, an instant NFT that is [maintained on a digital ledger] structure, wherein the instant NFT (Hardgrave [abstract]: the hotel tokenizes some or all of its inventory for a set period of time where a token represents room per night; [0041]: The process starts when the hotel decides to create a plurality of reservation 21 NFTs for use as a hotel reservation; [0042]: The generation of the reservation NFT 21 is followed by the technical generation process, which is accompanied by a legal process where the hotel agrees to their off-chain legal obligations, such as a bearer or an owner or a purchaser or a customer of the reservation NFT has the right to stay in a specified room within the hotel on a specified night, and encodes said specifics into the reservation NFT. Said specifics include three fields i.e. the name and location of the hotel, the room number or room class, and the date of the night of the stay. Each reservation NFT is unique, and by definition, non-fungible), (see also paragraphs [0026], [0057] and [0050] and Fig. 1):
represents a concrete NFT to be minted at a later stage (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0058] and Fig. 3); and
comprises an initial record, including:
a first reference to a content element to be included in the concrete NFT (see paragraphs [0048] and [0062]-[0063]);
a second reference to at least one policy that will govern the concrete NFT (see paragraph [0042]); and
a first timestamp (e.g., set period of time), associated with a time of creation for the instant NFT (see abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0057] and [0050] and Fig. 1);
determine a modification to the initial record associated with the instant NFT, wherein the modification is (Hardgrave [0044]: The hotel then transfers at least one reservation 22 NFT to the purchaser or third party. Once the reservation NFT has been generated, it is placed in the hotel's wallet. The hotel can hold it or offer it for transfer as it chooses. Usually, the reservation NFT would be sold to the purchaser, effectuating a process similar to that the purchaser making the hotel reservation. Once transferred, the hotel is obligated to provide the final purchaser of the reservation NFT an access to the specified room on the specified night. The hotel can either directly transfer the reservation NFT from the wallet of the hotel to the wallet of the purchaser, or, if the reservation NFT is held in the custody, transfer of ownership of the reservation NFT can be managed by the custodian; [0045]: Additional reservation 23 NFT transfers can be take place between the owners), (see also paragraphs [0045] and [0060] and Fig. 1):
indicative of a transaction associated with the instant NFT (see also paragraphs [0045] and [0060] and Fig. 1); and
associated with a second timestamp (Hardgrave [0047]: After redemption of the reservation NFT by the owner, or their designate, the hotel digitally signs 27 the reservation NFT, adds a timestamp and a signature, and confirms the check-in of the owner, or their designate. The digital signature 27 is recorded on the blockchain at the time of signing, hence creating an immutable record that the reservation NFT was redeemed), (see also paragraphs [0019] and [0063] and Fig. 2); and
[….] mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT on the public blockchain using the network interface (Hardgrave [0051]: The memento NFT is minted and placed in a customer's wallet. The memento NFT creation process is completed after the digital signatures have been added), (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0058] and Fig. 3), wherein:
minting the instant NFT comprises generating a concrete record for the concrete NFT based on the initial record (Hardgrave [0051]: The memento NFT is minted and placed in a customer's wallet. The memento NFT creation process is completed after the digital signatures have been added. The memento NFT can either be minted 36 directly in the customer's wallet or can be minted into the custody's wallet controlled by the exchange or other custodian and be held in custody on behalf of the customer. The customer now has ownership of an absolutely unique and immutable record of the night or nights of the reservation), (see paragraph [0063]); and
the concrete NFT is minted to
have access to the content element (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0058] and Fig. 3); and
be governed by the at least one policy (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0058] and Fig. 3).
As indicated above, Hardgrave discloses, NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger. Furthermore, Hardgrave discloses, the hotel creates NFTs 51, thus the instant NFT is privately maintained. However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Beaty to specifically disclose, generate, using the network interface, an instant NFT that is privately maintained on a non-distributed data structure.
Beaty discloses: generate, using the network interface, an instant NFT that is privately maintained on a non-distributed data structure (Beaty [0027]: FIGS. 5A and 5B provide an example of how system 10 may allow an admin to end a round of a game and thereby trigger the awarding of off-chain NFTs to students on a winning team; [0028]: Turning to FIG. 5B, in step 5, API server 200 may issue off-chain NFTs to each student on the winning team. For example, using the list of students obtained in step 4, API server 200 could create an NFT_entry in NFT data structures 307 to define an NFT that is awarded to the student. As shown, an NFT_entry may associate the StudentID of the student who is awarded the NFT with an identifier of the NFT and possibly with the SchoolID, RoundID, and TeamID).
Beaty further discloses: wherein the instant NFT:
represents a concrete NFT to be minted at a later stage (Beaty [0007]: A smart contract can receive the voucher from the client device used by the first student. The smart contract can then use the hash signature and the voucher ID included in the voucher to verify that the first student is authorized to redeem the first off-chain NFT for an on-chain NFT. The smart contract can then mint the on-chain NFT), (see paragraphs [0007] and [0036]); and
comprises a record, including:
a first reference (e.g., NFT data structures) to a content element to be included in the concrete NFT (see paragraphs [0026]-[0027], [0033] and [0036]);
a second reference (e.g., NFT data structures) to at least one policy that will govern the concrete NFT (see paragraphs [0026]-[0027], [0033] and [0036]);
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 Hardgrave with Beaty to include an off-chain abstraction mechanism for distributing NFTs to enhance reduce backchain network load and enhance user experience.
As indicated above, Hardgrave discloses, according to the process, the hotel tokenizes some or all of its inventory for a set period of time where a token represents room per night. Hardgrave further discloses, the hotel digitally signs 27 the reservation NFT, adds a timestamp and a signature, and confirms the check-in of the owner, or their designate. The digital signature 27 is recorded on the blockchain at the time of signing, hence creating an immutable record that the reservation NFT was redeemed (see paragraph [0047]). Thus, Hardgrave discloses, each record contains timestamp (i.e., first timestamp and second timestamp). However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Shapiro to specifically disclose, NFT comprising data, timestamps.
Shapiro discloses:
generate an NFT comprises a record, including a first timestamp, associated with a time of creation for the instant NFT (Shapiro [0027]: Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data; [0062]: In some embodiments, the rendering system, individually or in combination with other software systems, causes or facilitates the generation of the indication of creation. For example, and as described further herein, software used to make the creative work may generate timestamps).
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 Hardgrave and Beaty with Shapiro to include well-known record tracking data attributes such as timestamp to enhance transaction.
As indicated above, Hardgrave discloses, minting NFTs (i.e., mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT).
Hardgrave does not specifically disclose, estimating mint fees/costs and comparing them with threshold (e.g., most efficient minting process).
However, KRISHNA discloses: when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the [NFT] (KRISHNA [0059]: In an example, the user 242 of the electronic device 110 may choose to mint the NFTs by way of lazy minting process, since minting tokens can often be cost-prohibitive. Depending on the price of Ethereum cryptocurrency in the blockchain network 116 and how high gas fees are, lazy minting process may provide an alternative and way to wait out a period of high gas fees until the gas fees are lower. Further, minting at Just-In-Time (JIT) as part of the meta-cart checkout process using the prevailing rates in the blockchain network 116 is provided to optimize the spending of the user 242. In an instance, the minting of the NFT may also be prescribed as an optional step, in case the buyer wants to opt for or the seller has already prescribed a predetermined NFTs cost for the digital instance of the one or more product, if applicable, as part of the purchase of the one or more products. The lazy minting process may entail paying the gas fee, allowing the Ethereum cryptocurrency transactions to process on the blockchain network 116), (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and Fig. 3D).
Examiner’s Note: claim 1 recites “when a set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with a public blockchain fall beneath a pre-determined threshold, mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT”. This is conditional language limitation. The mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT only gets performed when the when a set of network processing expenditure estimates, 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. (In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); MPEP § 2103 I C).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty and Shapiro with KRISHNA to include lazy minting process of KRISHNA to enhance blockchain minting process and to enhance minting efficiency.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardgrave et al. (US 20220108232 A1, “Hardgrave”) in view of Beaty et al. (US 20230306543 A1, “Beaty”) in view of Shapiro et al. (US 20220309491 A1, “Shapiro”) in view of KRISHNA et al. (US 20230169578 A1, “KRISHNA”) and further in view of Todasco et al. (US 20230186281 A1, “Todasco”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein the instant NFT is stored until being minted into the concrete NFT, using at least one protection technique selected from the group consisting of:
recording a value representing the initial record associated with the instant NFT on a [public blockchain] (see paragraphs [0047] and [0063]);
digitally signing the instant NFT using a private key associated with a certified public key, wherein a certification indicates a level of trust associated with a holder of the private key (Hardgrave [0026]: the reservation NFT is augmented with a digital signature of the hotel, creating immutable proof that the reservation was accepted and used by the owner of the reservation NFT or their designate), (see also paragraph [0047] and Fig. 3);
recording the modification by time-stamping a collection that includes the instant NFT (see also paragraph [0047] and Fig. 3); and
storing the instant NFT in a secure storage area, in a format that provides audit of access and additional modification (see paragraph [0049]).
As indicated above, Hardgrave discloses, NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger/blockchain.
Hardgrave doesn’t explicitly disclose, using a private blockchain.
However, Todasco discloses:
recording a value representing the initial record associated with the instant NFT on a private blockchain (Todasco [0187]: The transaction may be broadcast to the blockchain network 1030a and recorded in the blockchain 1120; [0133]: blockchain 1120 may be private (permissioned) if access to the blockchain network 1100 and the blockchain 1120 is restricted to specific authorized entities, for example organizations or groups of individuals. Moreover, read permissions for the blockchain 1120 may be public or restricted while write permissions may be restricted to a controlling or authorized entity; [0133]: The blockchain network 1100 and its associated blockchain 1120 may be public (permissionless)), (see also abstract and paragraphs [0059] and [0129]).
storing in a secure store area in a format that provides audit of access and modification (Todasco [0063]: the blockchain 104 can be considered as a digital record of the set of blockchain transactions 108 that have been performed by the set of blockchain addresses 106. In other words, the blockchain 104 can be considered as conveying past transactional behaviors of the set of blockchain addresses 106), (see paragraphs [0084] and [0149]).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA with Todasco to include a private blockchain to restrict access to data to enhance the data security.
Alternatively, Todasco discloses:
digitally signing the instant NFT, using a private key associated with a certified public key, wherein a certification indicates a level of trust associated with a holder of the private key (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and [0143]).
recording the modification by time-stamping a collection that includes the instant NFT (Todasco [0027]: A common framework for blockchain is a decentralized database in which transactions are recorded using a virtually unmodifiable cryptographic signature. Records can be added to the decentralized database to create blocks, that are protected against manipulation and alteration. Each block is connected to a previous block and has a timestamp), (see also paragraphs [0029] and [0054] and Fig. 12).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA with Todasco to include a private blockchain to restrict access to data to enhance the data security.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave doesn’t explicitly disclose; however, Todasco discloses: The NFT platform of claim 2, wherein recording the modification by time-stamping the collection comprises: generating a hash of edits in a hash chain, and incorporating a current hash value of the hash chain in a blockchain entry (see paragraphs [0135]-[0139] and [0067] and Fig. 12).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA with Todasco to include a private blockchain to restrict access to data to enhance the data security.
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein the given processor is further configured to:
generate a plurality of instant NFTs, each associated with a distinct record from a plurality of records (Hardgrave [0041]: The process starts when the hotel decides to create a plurality of reservation 21 NFTs for use as a hotel reservation), (see paragraphs [0043] and Fig. 1);
time-stamp the plurality of records as a collection (Hardgrave [0050]: A timestamp and or GPS marker can be added to the NFT event being memorialized. Moreover, the addition of each digital signature and timestamp increase assurance in the memento NFT; [0052]: The memento NFTs like other collectibles are used to memorialize a special event in digital format. A set of memento NFTs can be shared among a group of travelers as keepsakes. The memento NFTs in form of a set of wedding NFTs can be gifted as mementos to groomsmen or bridesmaids. The memento NFTs in form of a set professional NFTs can be minted after a conference or class to commemorate attendance.) (see paragraphs [0047] and Fig. 2);
Hardgrave doesn’t explicitly disclose; however, Todasco discloses:
generate a hash of the collection (see paragraphs [0135]-[0138] and Fig. 12); and
record the hash on a blockchain (see paragraphs [0135]-[0138] and Fig. 12).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA with Todasco to include a private blockchain to restrict access to data to enhance the data security.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein all modifications to the initial record are stored in a secure storage area, wherein the secure storage area is incorporated into a digital wallet (Hardgrave [0049]: The media is saved on a secure server; [0043]: The reservation NFT can either be generated directly in a wallet controlled by the hotel or can be generated into a custody wallet controlled by an exchange or other custodian and be held in the custody on behalf of the hotel. The term “wallet” refers to software that allows a NFT owner to access and store their holdings for safekeeping, similar to an online bank account), (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein: the concrete NFT indicates at least one public key associated with at least one recent owner, of the instant NFT, (see paragraph [0052]); and
minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT comprises specifying a most recent owner of the instant NFT, associated with the at least one public key, as an owner of the concrete NFT on the public blockchain (Hardgrave [0051]: The memento NFT is minted and placed in a customer's wallet. The memento NFT creation process is completed after the digital signatures have been added; [0058]: The hotel creates NFTs 51. The minting of an NFT is a publicly defined process, typically specified in publicly available documentation related to the NFT standard and the specifics of the blockchain being used).
Alternatively, Shapiro discloses: minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT comprises specifying a most recent owner of the instant NFT, associated with the at least one public key, as an owner of the concrete NFT on the public blockchain (see paragraphs [0070], [0143] and [0175]).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, KRISHNA and Todasco with Shapiro to include well-known record tracking data attributes such as timestamp to enhance transaction.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein: the initial record associated with the instant NFT is associated with an ownership that confers at least one right on an associated entity (see paragraph [0044]); and
the modification comprises a right modification of the at least one right (Hardgrave [0044]: The hotel then transfers at least one reservation 22 NFT to the purchaser or third party. Once the reservation NFT has been generated, it is placed in the hotel's wallet. The hotel can hold it or offer it for transfer as it chooses).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT is performed in response to at least one of:
receiving a request to produce the concrete NFT from a user (see paragraphs [0051] and [0063]); or
detecting an occurrence of an additional triggering event based on a given policy specified for the concrete NFT (see paragraphs [0048], [0051], [0058] and [0063])
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein […] minting the instant NFT as the concrete NFT (see paragraphs [0051], [0048] and [0058]).
As indicated above, Hardgrave discloses, minting NFTs (i.e., mint the instant NFT as the concrete NFT).
Hardgrave does not specifically disclose, estimating mint fees/costs and comparing them with threshold (e.g., most efficient minting process).
However, KRISHNA discloses: the set of network processing expenditure estimates associated with the public blockchain comprise at least one financial expenditure associated with minting the [NFT] (KRISHNA [0059]: In an example, the user 242 of the electronic device 110 may choose to mint the NFTs by way of lazy minting process, since minting tokens can often be cost-prohibitive. Depending on the price of Ethereum cryptocurrency in the blockchain network 116 and how high gas fees are, lazy minting process may provide an alternative and way to wait out a period of high gas fees until the gas fees are lower. Further, minting at Just-In-Time (JIT) as part of the meta-cart checkout process using the prevailing rates in the blockchain network 116 is provided to optimize the spending of the user 242. In an instance, the minting of the NFT may also be prescribed as an optional step, in case the buyer wants to opt for or the seller has already prescribed a predetermined NFTs cost for the digital instance of the one or more product, if applicable, as part of the purchase of the one or more products. The lazy minting process may entail paying the gas fee, allowing the Ethereum cryptocurrency transactions to process on the blockchain network 116), (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and Fig. 3D).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty and Shapiro with KRISHNA to include lazy minting process of KRISHNA to enhance blockchain minting process and to enhance minting efficiency.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardgrave et al. (US 20220108232 A1, “Hardgrave”) in view of Beaty et al. (US 20230306543 A1, “Beaty”) in view of Shapiro et al. (US 20220309491 A1, “Shapiro”) in view of KRISHNA et al. (US 20230169578 A1, “KRISHNA”) in view of Todasco et al. (US 20230186281 A1, “Todasco”) in view of RICHTER et al. (US 20230073140 A1 “RICHTER”) and further in view of KRYVOSHEI et al. (US 20230274283 A1, “KRYVOSHEI”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro and KRISHNA, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hardgrave further discloses: The NFT platform of claim 1, wherein the given processor is further configured to:
generate a second instant NFT (Hardgrave [0041]: The process starts when the hotel decides to create a plurality of reservation 21 NFTs for use as a hotel reservation);
determine a particular modification to an additional initial record associated with the second instant NFT, wherein the particular modification is indicative of a particular transaction associated with the second instant NFT (Hardgrave [0044]: The hotel then transfers at least one reservation 22 NFT to the purchaser or third party. Once the reservation NFT has been generated, it is placed in the hotel's wallet. The hotel can hold it or offer it for transfer as it chooses. Usually, the reservation NFT would be sold to the purchaser; [0046]: The final reservation 26 NFT owner redeems the NFT for check-in to the hotel. On the reservation date specified in the reservation NFT, the owner of the reservation NFT), (see paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and Fig. 2);
Hardgrave doesn’t explicitly disclose; however, RICHTER discloses:
assess that the particular transaction is at least one selected from the group consisting of an accidental transaction and a fraudulent transaction (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080] and [0093]).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro, KRISHNA and Todasco with RICHTER to include well-known fraud detection function to enhance transaction security.
Hardgrave doesn’t explicitly disclose; however, KRYVOSHEI discloses:
reverting the particular modification to the additional initial record associated with the second [NFT] (see paragraphs [0004-0006], [0033] and [0037]).
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 Hardgrave, Beaty, Shapiro, KRISHNA and RICHTER with KRYVOSHEI to include well-known fraud detection function and blocking/reverting/refunding a transaction to enhance transaction security and user experience.
Conclusion
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