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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in replied to the amendment filed on 11/12/2025.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28 have been amended.
Claims 3, 6-9, and 16-19, 23 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-15, and 20-22, and 24-28 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 Statutory requirements and Four categories of invention, the Examiner acknowledged that claims 14 and 15 have been amended to include “non-transitory” per October 29 telephone conference.
The 112(b), metes and bounds, rejection has been raised. The independent claims 1 and 20 could be reasonably interpreted as either between a narrower claim scope or a much broader claim scope. The Examiner suggests the Applicant to rewrite the claims to address the issue.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained until the 112 (b) rejection is addressed.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the applicant asserted that “these rights can be transferred to a subsequent presenter by transferring the NFT. This can include payment for the transfer. The system can also compensate audience members . . .” However, the claimed limitation is still disclosed by Silverstein in paragraph [0078]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 20 recite the broad recitation “or wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: transferring the NFT from the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to an unlocked portion of the user token wallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked”, and the claims also recite “a method for locking non fungible token (NFT) . . . wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: executing an unlocking smart contract that withdraws the NFT from the lock wallet and deposits the NFT to the user token wallet” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The limitations before the last limitation “or wherein: the NFT is locked . . .” could be interpreted as a narrower scope whereas the last limitation could be a stand-alone claim with much broader scope. The Examiner suggested amending the claim(s) to clarify the scope of the claimed invention and to avoid the metes and bounds problem. Right now, it is interpreted under BRI as either (ABCD) (group 1) or (C) (group 2).
The dependent claims 2, 4-5, 10-13, 21-22, 24-28 are rejected based on dependency status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-15, 20-22, 24-28 are directed to a method, a computer-readable storage medium, and a computing system which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1-2, 4-5, 10-15, 20-22, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites A method for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the method comprising: transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier, wherein, the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles, the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts; receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT; locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time, wherein the NFT is locked to the user by: executing a locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from a user wallet, identified by the token wallet identifier, and temporarily deposits the NFT to a lock walle or transferring the NFT to a portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked causes the NFT to be locked; generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values; and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users; and unlocking, after the predefined period of time, the NFT from the user, wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts; wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: executing an unlocking smart contract that withdraws the NFT from the lock wallet and deposits the NFT to the user token wallet; or wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: transferring the NFT from the designated as locked to an unlocked portion of the user token wallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked.. The limitations are directed to commercial interactions (transferring funds between wallet – business relations). Hence, they fall within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a process for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the process comprising: transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier, wherein, the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles, the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts; receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT; locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time, wherein the NFT is locked to the user by: altering token data of the NFT, wherein the altered token data identifies the NFT as locked, and the altered token data is written to the blockchain ledger, wherein the altered token data prevents the one or more smart contracts from transferring ownership of the NFT from the user; generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values; and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users. The limitations are directed to commercial interactions (transferring funds between wallet – business relations). Hence, they fall within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites A computing system for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process comprising: transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier, wherein, the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles, the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts; receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT; locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time, wherein the NFT is locked to the user by: executing a locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from a user wallet, identified by the token wallet identifier, and temporarily deposits the NFT to a lock wallet, or transferring the NFT to a portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked causes the NFT to be locked; generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values; and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users; wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, and the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, the NFT from the user by executing an unlocking smart contract that withdraws the NFT from the lock wallet and deposits the NFT to the user token wallet, wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts; or wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the designated as locked, and the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, the NFT from the user by transferring the NFT from the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to an unlocked portion of the user token wallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked. The limitations are directed to commercial interactions (transferring funds between wallet – business relations). Hence, they fall within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a non-transitory computer readable medium, a non-fungible token (NFT), a smart contract, a computing system, a computer readable storage medium to perform receiving, processing. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (establishing, determining, requesting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 14, 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transferring ownership of digital asset. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as the NFT, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) depositing ownership of digital asset to a locked account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as the NFT, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 5 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) comprising a blockchain ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a database, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 10 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) comprising parameters. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a database, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) comprising a blockchain ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a database, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 12 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) ranking metrics. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a database, a blockchain ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 13 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) assigning value to a digital asset. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 15 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) assigning value to a digital asset. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a non-transitory computer readable medium, NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 21 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) withdrawing the digital asset from the user wallet. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 22 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) assigning value to a digital asset. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 24 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) unlocking transfer the NFT from a locked portion. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 25 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) altering the data from the digital asset. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 26 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) maintaining digital tokens on the contracts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system, a database) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 27 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) depositing NFT to the token wallet. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 28 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transferring NFT from the locked portion of the user token. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a NFT, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-15, 20-22, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 14-15, 20-22, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalmia et al. (US 2023/0298435 A1) in view of Silverstein et al. (US 2024/0022793 A1) in view of Benedetto et al. (US 2023/0182025 A1).
Claim 1 is grouped together. Dalmia discloses: A method for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the method comprising:
transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier (Dalmia, see at least par. [0251] “. . . . An exchange action 233 can be executed to change control or ownership of an NFT from a first party to a second party. For example, an exchange action can be executed to trade one or more NFTs between two or more parties . . .” & par. [0234] “A token within the digital ledger platform 40 can be used to represent and transfer assets via a digital ledger . . .”) ,wherein,
the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles (Dalmia, Par. [0250] “A game symbol NFT 202 represents a game symbol within one or more games and includes examples such as a collectible card (e.g., poker, blackjack, etc.) or a particular number Keno ball (e.g., 7 number Keno ball). A space NFT 204 represents a particular space within a game (e.g., a space on a virtual roulette wheel or virtual boardgame space). A character NFT 206 represents a digital character within a game (e.g., game piece within a virtual boardgame) . . .”) ,
the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (par. [0278]) the cited portion discloses ownership transfer performed by the smart contract;
receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT (Dalmia, see at least par. [0556] “. . . In particular, GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 may transmit messages indicating the operational state, status, events and/or other data associated with the gaming machine to the management computing device 106, and the management computing device 106 may transmits commands, such as operational state commands, and/or other data to GMU 607 and/or PIB 609. These commands are in a data format recognized by GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 and cause GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 to execute instruction to facilitate an operational state transition. The operational state transition may include selectively enabling, disabling, or otherwise changing operation of hardware and/or software of the gaming machine . . .”);
locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time (Dalmia, see at least par. [0459] “. . . The bond NFT can include and/or represent an underlying digital asset that can be used by an owner of the bond NFT if and when the owner elects to exercise the bond NFT upon expiration of one or more lock-in periods (e.g., pre-defined time periods and/or dates) that can be associated with the bond NFT. In some embodiments, the bond NFT can be inactive and/or valueless until expiration of a first lock-in period in such one or more lock-in periods ”)
Dalmia does not teach the following; however, Silverstein teaches:
unlocking, after the predefined period of time, (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Additional compensation within the audience wallet 527 may unlock or become unrestricted over time. For example, additional compensation received by audience members may unlock or restrictions may be removed at designated intervals of time or after completion of a particular event. For example, an event may include an attention check-in event that an audience member may be required to respond to within a limited period of time to indicate the audience member is still attentive to the presentation . . .”) the NFT from the user, wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (Silverstein, see at least par. [0089] “In step 621 transference of the NFT between the current presenter and the subsequent presenter may commence. Payment for the NFT can be deducted from the subsequent presenter's non-custodial wallet in exchange for the NFT. In step 623, the payment deducted from the subsequent presenter's wallet is transferred to the current presenter's non-custodial wallet and/or the non-custodial wallet(s) of audience members attending the digital event session 503 . . .”);
wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, or transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked causes the NFT to be locked (Silverstein, see at least par. [0078] “. . . , the lock or restriction placed on the money, currency or other items of value deposited within the audience wallets 527 may remain in place for a specified minimum period of time. Once the minimum period of time has elapsed, and the audience member is, at the very least, still present within the audience of the digital event session 503, at least a portion (or all) of the locked or restricted compensation received from the transference of presentation rights to the subsequent presenter can become unrestricted or unlocked . . .”);
or wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked (Silverstein, see at least par. [0090] “. . . . In step 631, determination is made whether any of the audience members receiving an incentive deposited within their non-custodial wallets have attended or been attentive to the subsequent presenter for the minimum period of time necessary to unlock at least a portion of the funds deposited to their audience wallet(s) 527. If the minimum period of time has not passed yet, the method 600 may proceed to step 633 whereby the funds deposited into the audience members' wallet remains locked or restricted . . .”) Interpretation: the NFT is transferred to the locked portion of the wallet until the period of time passes, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: transferring the NFT from the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked (see at least par. [0091] “. . . if the subsequent presenter in step 637 has exceeded an allotted amount of time provisioned as part of the receipt of the NFT to be in the presenter role, the method 600 may proceed to step 639. In step 639, additional compensation may be owed or provided to the first presenter and/or audience members due. Additional funds may be withdrawn from the subsequent presenter's wallet and deposited into the wallets of the first presenter and/or the wallets of audience members to compensate them for the additional amount of time being utilized by the subsequent presenter . . .”) Interpretation: if the wallet is unlocked after the portion of time, the portion (or funds) is deposited into the user wallet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Dalmia in view of Silverstein does not disclose the following; however, Benedetto teaches
generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values (Benedetto, see at least par. [0045] “. . . In some implementations, the digital asset and its achievements/value may be retrieved and presented using visual indicators alongside content of video game or alongside avatar or virtual character representation of the player or on a leader-board or in some portion of the display screen to inform other players of the presence of the digital asset and its intrinsic value. In some implementations, the presentation of the digital asset may be to brag or inform other players of the player possessing the digital asset . . .”) Interpretation: the collection metric includes a leader-board with a display screen that could inform other players of the values for the NFT digital asset ;
and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users (par. [0045] “. . . The visual indicators may be customized in accordance to the value of the digital asset. In some implementations, the digital assets may be presented in the form of numbers/scores, or color coded, or represented in graphical user interface format, etc. . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of generating a collection metric as taught by Benedetto with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 14 is disclosed. Dalmia discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a process for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the process comprising: transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier (Dalmia, see at least par. [0251] “. . . . An exchange action 233 can be executed to change control or ownership of an NFT from a first party to a second party. For example, an exchange action can be executed to trade one or more NFTs between two or more parties . . .” & par. [0234] “A token within the digital ledger platform 40 can be used to represent and transfer assets via a digital ledger . . .”) ,wherein,
the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles (Dalmia, Par. [0250] “A game symbol NFT 202 represents a game symbol within one or more games and includes examples such as a collectible card (e.g., poker, blackjack, etc.) or a particular number Keno ball (e.g., 7 number Keno ball). A space NFT 204 represents a particular space within a game (e.g., a space on a virtual roulette wheel or virtual boardgame space). A character NFT 206 represents a digital character within a game (e.g., game piece within a virtual boardgame) . . .”) ,
the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (par. [0278]) the cited portion discloses ownership transfer performed by the smart contract;
receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT (Dalmia, see at least par. [0556] “. . . In particular, GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 may transmit messages indicating the operational state, status, events and/or other data associated with the gaming machine to the management computing device 106, and the management computing device 106 may transmits commands, such as operational state commands, and/or other data to GMU 607 and/or PIB 609. These commands are in a data format recognized by GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 and cause GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 to execute instruction to facilitate an operational state transition. The operational state transition may include selectively enabling, disabling, or otherwise changing operation of hardware and/or software of the gaming machine . . .”);
locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time (Dalmia, see at least par. [0459] “. . . The bond NFT can include and/or represent an underlying digital asset that can be used by an owner of the bond NFT if and when the owner elects to exercise the bond NFT upon expiration of one or more lock-in periods (e.g., pre-defined time periods and/or dates) that can be associated with the bond NFT. In some embodiments, the bond NFT can be inactive and/or valueless until expiration of a first lock-in period in such one or more lock-in periods ”)
Dalmia does not teach the following; however, Silverstein teaches:
wherein the NFT is locked to the user by: altering token data of the NFT (Silverstein, Claim 2) Interpretation: the claim discusses alternating the token data of the NFT, wherein the altered token data identifies the NFT as locked, and the altered token data is written to the blockchain ledger, wherein the altered token data prevents the one or more smart contracts from transferring ownership of the NFT from the user (Silverstein, see at least par. [0078] “. . . the lock or restriction placed on the money, currency or other items of value deposited within the audience wallets 527 may remain in place for a specified minimum period of time. Once the minimum period of time has elapsed, and the audience member is, at the very least, still present within the audience of the digital event session 503, at least a portion (or all) of the locked or restricted compensation received from the transference of presentation rights to the subsequent presenter can become unrestricted or unlocked . . .”) Interpretation: for a predefined period of time (in modifying the Dalmia reference), the token portion of the wallet is locked for a while;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Dalmia in view of Silverstein does not disclose the following; however, Benedetto teaches
generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values (Benedetto, see at least par. [0045] “. . . In some implementations, the digital asset and its achievements/value may be retrieved and presented using visual indicators alongside content of video game or alongside avatar or virtual character representation of the player or on a leader-board or in some portion of the display screen to inform other players of the presence of the digital asset and its intrinsic value. In some implementations, the presentation of the digital asset may be to brag or inform other players of the player possessing the digital asset . . .”) Interpretation: the collection metric includes a leader-board with a display screen that could inform other players of the values for the NFT digital asset ;
and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users (par. [0045] “. . . The visual indicators may be customized in accordance to the value of the digital asset. In some implementations, the digital assets may be presented in the form of numbers/scores, or color coded, or represented in graphical user interface format, etc. . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of generating a collection metric as taught by Benedetto with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 20 is grouped together. Dalmia discloses: A computing system for locking non-fungible token (NFT) transfer(s) to support NFT collection(s), the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process (Dalmia, par. [0028]) the cited portion discloses computing elements required for the process to perform, comprising:
transferring ownership of an NFT to a user affiliated with a token wallet identifier (Dalmia, see at least par. [0251] “. . . . An exchange action 233 can be executed to change control or ownership of an NFT from a first party to a second party. For example, an exchange action can be executed to trade one or more NFTs between two or more parties . . .” & par. [0234] “A token within the digital ledger platform 40 can be used to represent and transfer assets via a digital ledger . . .”) ,wherein,
the NFT is linked to a digital collectible from a set of digital collectibles (Dalmia, Par. [0250] “A game symbol NFT 202 represents a game symbol within one or more games and includes examples such as a collectible card (e.g., poker, blackjack, etc.) or a particular number Keno ball (e.g., 7 number Keno ball). A space NFT 204 represents a particular space within a game (e.g., a space on a virtual roulette wheel or virtual boardgame space). A character NFT 206 represents a digital character within a game (e.g., game piece within a virtual boardgame) . . .”) ,
the ownership transfer is performed by one or more smart contracts that append the ownership transfer to a blockchain ledger, and after the ownership transfer, the NFT is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (par. [0278]) the cited portion discloses ownership transfer performed by the smart contract;
receiving, from the user, a lock command for the NFT (Dalmia, see at least par. [0556] “. . . In particular, GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 may transmit messages indicating the operational state, status, events and/or other data associated with the gaming machine to the management computing device 106, and the management computing device 106 may transmits commands, such as operational state commands, and/or other data to GMU 607 and/or PIB 609. These commands are in a data format recognized by GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 and cause GMU 607 and/or PIB 609 to execute instruction to facilitate an operational state transition. The operational state transition may include selectively enabling, disabling, or otherwise changing operation of hardware and/or software of the gaming machine . . .”);
locking, in response to the lock command, the NFT to the user such that transfer of the NFT from the user is disabled for a predefined period of time (Dalmia, see at least par. [0459] “. . . The bond NFT can include and/or represent an underlying digital asset that can be used by an owner of the bond NFT if and when the owner elects to exercise the bond NFT upon expiration of one or more lock-in periods (e.g., pre-defined time periods and/or dates) that can be associated with the bond NFT. In some embodiments, the bond NFT can be inactive and/or valueless until expiration of a first lock-in period in such one or more lock-in periods ”)
Dalmia does not teach the following; however, Silverstein teaches:
wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, or transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked causes the NFT to be locked (Silverstein, see at least par. [0078] “. . . , the lock or restriction placed on the money, currency or other items of value deposited within the audience wallets 527 may remain in place for a specified minimum period of time. Once the minimum period of time has elapsed, and the audience member is, at the very least, still present within the audience of the digital event session 503, at least a portion (or all) of the locked or restricted compensation received from the transference of presentation rights to the subsequent presenter can become unrestricted or unlocked . . .”);
or wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the locked portion of the user token wallet, and the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Additional compensation within the audience wallet 527 may unlock or become unrestricted over time. For example, additional compensation received by audience members may unlock or restrictions may be removed at designated intervals of time or after completion of a particular event. For example, an event may include an attention check-in event that an audience member may be required to respond to within a limited period of time to indicate the audience member is still attentive to the presentation . . .”) the NFT from the user by transferring the NFT from the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to anwallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked. (Silverstein, see at least par. [0089] “In step 621 transference of the NFT between the current presenter and the subsequent presenter may commence. Payment for the NFT can be deducted from the subsequent presenter's non-custodial wallet in exchange for the NFT. In step 623, the payment deducted from the subsequent presenter's wallet is transferred to the current presenter's non-custodial wallet and/or the non-custodial wallet(s) of audience members attending the digital event session 503 . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of transferring the NFT to a locked portion of the user token wallet, wherein the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring NFTs from the locked portion of the user token wallet as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Dalmia in view of Silverstein does not disclose the following; however, Benedetto teaches
generating a collection metric for the user using the locked NFT, wherein the collection metric is generated by retrieving values assigned to one or more NFTs locked to the user and aggregating the one or more assigned values (Benedetto, see at least par. [0045] “. . . In some implementations, the digital asset and its achievements/value may be retrieved and presented using visual indicators alongside content of video game or alongside avatar or virtual character representation of the player or on a leader-board or in some portion of the display screen to inform other players of the presence of the digital asset and its intrinsic value. In some implementations, the presentation of the digital asset may be to brag or inform other players of the player possessing the digital asset . . .”) Interpretation: the collection metric includes a leader-board with a display screen that could inform other players of the values for the NFT digital asset ;
and displaying the collection metric in comparison to collection metrics generated for a plurality of users (par. [0045] “. . . The visual indicators may be customized in accordance to the value of the digital asset. In some implementations, the digital assets may be presented in the form of numbers/scores, or color coded, or represented in graphical user interface format, etc. . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of generating a collection metric as taught by Benedetto with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 2 and 15 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is disclosed: Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto The method of claim 1, wherein: after the ownership transfer, the NFT is transferrable from the user via execution of the one or more smart contracts, and after the locking and for the period of time, execution of the one or more smart contracts for transfer of the NFT is prevented, making the NFT non- transferrable (Dalmia, par. [0075] “. . . In some embodiments, the bond NFT can be inactive and/or valueless until expiration of a first lock-in period in such one or more lock-in periods.”) When the NFT is locked in, the NFT will be inactive and valueless and not transferrable when assigned to a user.
Claim 4 is rejected. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The method of claim 3. Silverstein further teaches: wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, while the NFT is deposited at the lock wallet an identifier for the NFT to a database that maintains locked NFTs, and the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring ownership of the NFT from the user while the database indicates the identifier for the NFT is locked (Silverstein, par. [0078]) The cited portion discloses withdrawing the NFT from the wallet and deposits to the lock wallet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of withdrawing token from wallet as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 5 disclosed. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto in further view of Dalmia teaches: The method of claim 4. Dalmia further teaches: wherein the database comprises a separate blockchain ledger (Dalmia, par. [0257] “. . . An oracle can be a database or other data source that provides traditional business information to a smart contract running on a blockchain ledger . . .”).
Claim 10 is disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto. The method of claim 1, wherein the NFT comprises a collection parameter with a collection parameters value, and the one or more assigned values aggregated to generate the collection metric are values assigned to one or more NFTs that comprise a matching collection parameter value (Benedetto, see at least par. [0045] “. . . In some implementations, the digital asset and its achievements/value may be retrieved and presented using visual indicators alongside content of video game or alongside avatar or virtual character representation of the player or on a leader-board or in some portion of the display screen to inform other players of the presence of the digital asset and its intrinsic value. In some implementations, the presentation of the digital asset may be to brag or inform other players of the player possessing the digital asset . . .”) Interpretation: the collection metric includes a leader-board with a display screen that could inform other players of the values for the NFT digital asset.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of generating a collection metric as taught by Benedetto with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 11 is disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: . The method of claim 10. Dalmatia further teaches: wherein: the collection parameter comprises a team and the collection parameter value comprises a team identifier, or the collection parameter comprises a player and the collection parameter value comprises a player identifier (see at least par. [0041] “. . . The data included in the blockchain for the digital asset is metadata (i.e., digital descriptor) that provides sufficient details related to the digital asset including an asset identifier, a video game identifier of the video game where the digital asset was awarded/earned/acquired, player identifier, type, attributes defining capabilities, entitlements, functionalities, number and type of significant events in which the digital asset was used, frequency of trade or sale (if any), etc. . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of generating a collection metric as taught by Benedetto with the invention disclosed by Dalmia to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 21. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto discloses: The method of claim 1. Silverstein, further teaches: wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: executing an unlocking smart contract that withdraws the NFT from the lock wallet and deposits the NFT to the user token wallet (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Additional compensation within the audience wallet 527 may unlock or become unrestricted over time. For example, additional compensation received by audience members may unlock or restrictions may be removed at designated intervals of time or after completion of a particular event. For example, an event may include an attention check-in event that an audience member may be required to respond to within a limited period of time to indicate the audience member is still attentive to the presentation . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 22. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto discloses: The method of claim 1. Silverstein, further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked, and the NFT is unlocked from the user by: transferring the NFT from the locked portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet (Silverstein, see at least par. [0089] “In step 621 transference of the NFT between the current presenter and the subsequent presenter may commence. Payment for the NFT can be deducted from the subsequent presenter's non-custodial wallet in exchange for the NFT. In step 623, the payment deducted from the subsequent presenter's wallet is transferred to the current presenter's non-custodial wallet and/or the non-custodial wallet(s) of audience members attending the digital event session 503 . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 24. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14. Silverstein further teaches: wherein the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Additional compensation within the audience wallet 527 may unlock or become unrestricted over time. For example, additional compensation received by audience members may unlock or restrictions may be removed at designated intervals of time or after completion of a particular event. For example, an event may include an attention check-in event that an audience member may be required to respond to within a limited period of time to indicate the audience member is still attentive to the presentation . . .”) the NFT from the user, wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (Silverstein, see at least par. [0089] “In step 621 transference of the NFT between the current presenter and the subsequent presenter may commence. Payment for the NFT can be deducted from the subsequent presenter's non-custodial wallet in exchange for the NFT. In step 623, the payment deducted from the subsequent presenter's wallet is transferred to the current presenter's non-custodial wallet and/or the non-custodial wallet(s) of audience members attending the digital event session 503 . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 25. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14. Silverstein teaches: wherein the NFT is unlocked from the user by: altering the altered token data of the NFT to generate second altered token data (Silverstein, Claim 2) Interpretation: the claim discusses alternating the token data of the NFT, wherein the second altered token data identifies the NFT as unlocked, and the second altered token data is written to the blockchain ledger (Silverstein, see at least par. [0078] “. . . the lock or restriction placed on the money, currency or other items of value deposited within the audience wallets 527 may remain in place for a specified minimum period of time. Once the minimum period of time has elapsed, and the audience member is, at the very least, still present within the audience of the digital event session 503, at least a portion (or all) of the locked or restricted compensation received from the transference of presentation rights to the subsequent presenter can become unrestricted or unlocked . . .”) Interpretation: for a predefined period of time (in modifying the Dalmia reference), the token portion of the wallet is locked for a while;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 26. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The computing system of claim 20. Silverstein further teaches: wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, while the NFT is deposited at the lock wallet, an identifier for the NFT is written to a database that maintains locked NFTs, and the one or more smart contracts are prevented from transferring ownership of the NFT from the user while the database indicates the identifier for the NFT is locked (Silverstein, par. [0078]) The cited portion discloses withdrawing the NFT from the wallet and deposits to the lock wallet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 27. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The computing system of claim 20. Silverstein teaches: wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by executing the locking smart contract that temporarily withdraws the NFT from the user wallet and temporarily deposits the NFT to the lock wallet, and the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, the NFT from the user by executing an unlocking smart contract that withdraws the NFT from the lock wallet and deposits the NFT to the user token wallet, wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (see at least par. [0091] “. . . if the subsequent presenter in step 637 has exceeded an allotted amount of time provisioned as part of the receipt of the NFT to be in the presenter role, the method 600 may proceed to step 639. In step 639, additional compensation may be owed or provided to the first presenter and/or audience members due. Additional funds may be withdrawn from the subsequent presenter's wallet and deposited into the wallets of the first presenter and/or the wallets of audience members to compensate them for the additional amount of time being utilized by the subsequent presenter . . .”) Interpretation: if the wallet is unlocked after the portion of time, the portion (or funds) is deposited into the user wallet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 28. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The computing system of claim 20. Silverstein further teaches: wherein: the NFT is locked to the user by transferring the NFT to the locked portion of the user token wallet, and the process further comprises: unlocking, after the predefined period of time, the NFT from the user by transferring the NFT from the portion of the user token wallet designated as locked to an unlocked portion of the user token wallet, and wherein the transferring the NFT to the unlocked portion of the user token wallet causes the NFT to be unlocked.t (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Additional compensation within the audience wallet 527 may unlock or become unrestricted over time. For example, additional compensation received by audience members may unlock or restrictions may be removed at designated intervals of time or after completion of a particular event. For example, an event may include an attention check-in event that an audience member may be required to respond to within a limited period of time to indicate the audience member is still attentive to the presentation . . .”), wherein the NFT, after the unlocking, is configured for transfer from the user to other users via execution of the one or more smart contracts (Silverstein, see at least par. [0089] “In step 621 transference of the NFT between the current presenter and the subsequent presenter may commence. Payment for the NFT can be deducted from the subsequent presenter's non-custodial wallet in exchange for the NFT. In step 623, the payment deducted from the subsequent presenter's wallet is transferred to the current presenter's non-custodial wallet and/or the non-custodial wallet(s) of audience members attending the digital event session 503 . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features as taught by Silverstein with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalmia et al. (US 2023/0298435 A1) in view of Silverstein et al. (US 2024/0022793 A1) in view of Benedetto et al. (US 2023/0182025 A1) in further view of Mikulich et al. (US 2023/0177921).
Claim 12 is taught. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto discloses: The method of claim 1. However, Mikulich teaches: further comprising: ranking the collection metric in comparison to the collection metrics generated for the plurality of users. However, Mikulich teaches: wherein the display the collection metric comprises displaying the ranking (Mikulich, see at least par. [0080] “. . . n other embodiments, the system 12 may display a charm leader board on the table game display systems 27 showing a ranked list of casino charm NFTs associated the players seated at a gaming table.”) The cited portion discloses ranked list of NFTs.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of displaying the collection metric as taught by Mikulich with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 13 is taught. Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein: an assigned value for the NFT locked to the user corresponds to the value of the NFT at a time the NFT was locked to the user (Mikulich et al., par. [0107] “. . . In addition, when rendering the charm selection screen 66, the processor 12 may query the casino charm NFT data files 68 to retrieve the charm luck value 94 associated with each casino charm NFT 64 owned by the player and display each casino charm NFT 64 with the corresponding charm luck value 94 on the charm selection screen 66. In this way, the player is notified of the charm luck value 94 associated with each casino charm NFT 64 prior to making a selection.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of displaying the collection metric as taught by Mikulich with the invention disclosed by Dalmia in view of Silverstein in further view of Benedetto to help improving the performance of NFT ownership transfer. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693