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
Status of the Application
1. The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 7/9/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 7 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
3. Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks on pages 6-7, the previous 112 second/b rejections and claim objections from the Non-Final Office Action dated 3/10/2025 have been withdrawn.
4. On remarks pages 8-9, Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Applicant has not addressed why the claims do not recite determining a risk associated with a specific record in a record of transactions (ledger) according to different scores generated based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record, which as discussed by the Examiner in the previous 101 rejection in the Non-Final Office Action dated 3/10/2025 is an abstract idea.
Rather Applicant appears to be arguing based on all the limitations of the claims, the claims do not recite an abstract idea. This does not follow the current USPTO 101 guidance, as there are multiple steps to the 101 analysis. Some of these argued limitations are additional elements beyond the abstract idea, specifically “blockchain”, “smart contracts” and “ non-fungible tokens” as broadly recited in the claims, which as recited in the claims amount to no more than (1) 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
5. As per Applicant’s arguments on page 10 with respect to the 101, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically the Examiner stated the following with respect to blockchain and why that additional element was apply it level claiming and therefore not a practical application (cited herein):
The additional elements that the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” rather than for example written records , the ledger is instead a “blockchain” and contains “blocks” of information rather than for example a written ledger containing written information, information is stored on a “database” instead than for example pen and paper, the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, the communications are “electronic” rather than for example pen and paper or performed in the human mind, and the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” instead of for example a human or humans, results merely in the recitation of “apply it.”
Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here the additional limitations provide only a result-orientated solution of merely implementing a risk assessment on blockchain technology and lack details as to how the computer performs the data gathering and calculations which is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Based on the above, Examiner did not state that blockchain is merely a pen and paper ledger rather the Examiner stated that the additional element of blockchain was merely apply it level recitations of “blockchain” rather than for example using a paper and paper ledger found in the abstract idea.
Further on pages 10-12 of Remarks, Applicant argues specifics with how the blockchain is created, none of which is claimed therefore the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive with respect to the practical application step, as this analysis relies on the claims rather than the specification.
See MPEP 2106.05(f), cited herein:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
6. On Remarks pages 11-12, Applicant argues the Examiner’s rejection of results based claiming with respect to the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically here Applicant argues many different aspects or limitations of Applicant’s specification (See Remarks page 12), however such limitations are not found in the claims. Therefore such arguments are not persuasive with respect to the practical application step ,as this analysis is relying on the claims rather than the specification, See MPEP 2106.05(f), cited above in section 5.
7. On Remarks pages 13-14, Applicant argues the claims recite an inventive concept as the claims recite a specific combination of limitations that is neither well understood, routine, nor conventional activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of Applicant’s additional element limitations, have been addressed under (1) 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
8. On Remarks pages 15-19, Applicant argues the prior art rejection with respect to Gaur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0092436). Here specifically Applicant argues the Examiner grouped limitations into a single overtly broad characterization of limitations. Then Applicant cites sections of Gaur et al., summarizes Gaur et al., then states that Gaur et al. does not teach “scanning the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain that contain smart contract code for that specific digital asset, retrieving metadata embedded within the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non-fungible token and deriving an ownership history of the specific digital asset from the retrieved metadata.” The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the respectfully disagrees.
For reference the Examiner’s rejection has been reproduced below, from Non-final Office Action dated 3/10/2025 page 14:
“receive a request for assessment of a specific non- fungible token on the
blockchain; scan the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain containing a
smart contract for the specific non- fungible token; retrieve metadata embedded within
the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token;
derive an ownership history of the specific no- fungible token from the retrieved
metadata; scan the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing the
last transaction for the specific non-fungible token; retrieve smart contract code from the
identified block containing the last transaction for the specific non- fungible token; (see
paragraphs 0062-0065, 0083-0085, 0107-0109, and Figure 7B, Examiner's note:
determining risk based on information on the block chain (see paragraphs 0083-0085).
Paragraphs 0107-0109, Figure 7B teaches metadata stored on the blockchain. Further
paragraphs 0062-0065 teach the smart contract is used for performing the transactions
on the blockchain).”
From the above cited sections it is clear in Gaur et al. the system queries the blockchain to receive information to determine information like total volume of trades of the digital asset, total amount of the digital asset in circulation, type of digital asset, reputation of uses on the blockchain of the digital asset, etc. to then determine a risk score of the digital asset, where digital asset is defined as a digital token in the blockchain (see paragraphs 0083-0085). Gaur et al. defines the common block chain structure includes blocks that are linked to previous blocks that include metadata like previous transaction information in paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B. The cited paragraphs teach smart contracts are used for performing the transactions on the blockchain (see paragraphs 0062-0065). Thereby meeting Applicant’s broad claims as argued above which are interpreted to recite the functions of receiving information from a block in a blockchain, where the blocks include smart contract information for a non-fungible token and determine ownership information from the received information from the blockchain for the blockchain. Here ownership information is a broad recitation that could read on many different aspects of Gaur et al. for example one trade rather than all trades, one user rather than all users, the general transaction data from the blocks, etc.
Applicant further argues Gauer also does not disclose scanning the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing the last transaction of the specific digital asset and the smart contract code from the identified block containing the last transaction for the specific digital asset (see Remarks page 19).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as detailed above the system is querying blockchain blocks to determine transaction information, so if the system is querying the blocks in the blockchain to determine information like determining total volume of trades of the digital asset, total amount of the digital asset in circulation, type of digital asset, reputation of uses on the blockchain of the digital asset, etc. to return in response to the query request, the system is not only just looking at and returning information containing the last transaction of the digital asset (token) it is looking at all and returning information containing all of the transactions of the token in response to the query for information to assess risk for the specific token, thereby meeting the broad claim as recited.
9. On Remarks pages 20-21, Applicant argues the prior art rejection with respect to Gaur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0092436). Here Applicant cites sections of Gaur et al., summarizes Gaur et al., then then states that Gaur et al. does not teach “determining the risk score based on a provenance score based on the ownership history of the digital asset retrieved from the blockchain network, a smart contract score based on the smart contract code for the digital asset retrieved from the last transaction of the digital asset on the blockchain network, and a performance score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the digital asset retrieved from the blockchain network.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First it is noted, Applicant recites performance in the arguments, however performance is not recited in the claims. The Examiner interprets performance as meant to be “permanence.”
Here as previously recited in the non-final Office action, the Examiner interprets the different data attributes like "total number of trades for the digital asset", "total amount of the digital asset in circulation", "type of the digital asset", "reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset", and the like are considered scores under broadest reasonable interpretation, which are derived from the blockchain, where the blockchain is formed from smart contracts (see paragraphs 0062-0065) and includes metadata (see paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B)).
Applicant has provided no reasoning as to why the broad recitation of “smart contract score”, “permanence score”, and “smart contract score” which are used to then determine an overall risk for the non-fungible token or “comprehensive risk score”, does not include "total number of trades for the digital asset", "total amount of the digital asset in circulation", "type of the digital asset", "reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset", and the like which are then used to determine an overall risk score (comprehensive risk score) by comparing the overall risk score to a threshold to make an action determination, as discussed in Gaur et al., therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor-based server.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of determining a risk associated with a specific record in a record of transactions (ledger) according to different scores generated based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record.
A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Here the claims recite a mathematical calculation as the claims recite determining a risk based on different scores generated based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record. Mathematical calculations are in the grouping of mathematical concepts.
Further the claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite observations, evaluations, judgmental and opinions a human or humans could perform in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Finally, the claims recite human activities where the claims recite the fundamental economic practice or principle of mitigating risk (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as the claims recite determining a risk associated with a specific record in a record of transactions (ledger) according to different scores generated based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record
Mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that the Examiner has bolded and underlined the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Limitations that are not bolded and underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
1. A system for assessment of a risk score for a non- fungible token transacted on a blockchain comprising: a blockchain capable of implementing smart contracts for creation, storing, and transaction of non-fungible tokens; a processor-based server in electronic communications with the blockchain; a database in electronic communications with a processor- based server capable of storing and retrieving data; the processor-based server configured to: receive a request for assessment of a specific non- fungible token on the blockchain; scan the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token; retrieve metadata embedded within the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token; derive an ownership history of the specific non- fungible token from the retrieved metadata; scan the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing a last transaction for the specific non-fungible token; retrieve smart contract code from the identified block containing the last transaction for the specific non- fungible token; generate a provenance score based on the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token; generate a smart contract score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token; generate a permanence score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token; and generate a comprehensive risk score for the specific non-fungible token based on the generated provenance score, smart contract score, and permanence score for the specific non-fungible token.
2. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token into a provenance score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the providence score using the provenance score model.
3. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a smart contract score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the smart contract score using the smart contract score model.
4. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a permanence score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model.
5. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the generated providence score, the smart contract score, and the permanence score into a comprehensive risk score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model.
6. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the provenance score is reflective of the ownership history of the specific non-fungible token.
7. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the permanence score is reflective of how the retrieved smart contract code references an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token.
8. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the smart contract score is reflective of code-related risk associated with the specific non-fungible token.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or mathematical calculations. Specifically, a human can assess a risk score for a record in a ledger, create or access a ledger with actions that create, store, and transact records as well as can store and retrieve data. Further a human can receive a request for an assessment for a specific record in a ledger, scan the ledger to identify pieces of information within the ledger that contain actions for specific records, also retrieve metadata embedded within the pieces of information containing actions for the specific record, and could derive ownership history from the record and the retrieved metadata. Additionally a human or humans can scan the record to identify pieces of information within the ledger containing the last transactions for the specific record and could retrieve action code from the identified piece of information containing the last transaction for the specific record. Also a user could generate a provenance score based on the derived ownership information history of the record, generate a score based on the retrieved action code for the specific record, generate a permanence score based on the received action code for the specific record, and generate a comprehensive risk score that takes into consideration the above scores.
The additional elements that the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” rather than for example written records , the ledger is instead a “blockchain” and contains “blocks” of information rather than for example a written ledger containing written information, information is stored on a “database” instead than for example pen and paper, the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, the communications are “electronic” rather than for example pen and paper or performed in the human mind, and the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” instead of for example a human or humans, results merely in the recitation of “apply it.”
Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here the additional limitations provide only a result-orientated solution of merely implementing a risk assessment on blockchain technology and lack details as to how the computer performs the data gathering and calculations which is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans or mathematical calculations as discussed above that are instead recite the additional elements of the specific records are “non-fungible tokens” rather than for example written records , the ledger is instead a “blockchain” and contains “blocks” of information rather than for example a written ledger containing written information, information is stored on a “database” instead than for example pen and paper, the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, the communications are “electronic” rather than for example pen and paper or performed in the human mind, and the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” instead of for example a human or humans, results merely in implementing the judicial exception in the technological environment for blockchain or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As per claim 2, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or mathematical calculations. Specifically a human could input the derived ownership history of the specific record into a provenance score model and generate the providence score using the provenance score model. The fact that the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely “apply it” or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or mathematical calculations. Specifically a human could input the retrieved action for the specific record into an action model and generate an action score using the action score model. The fact that the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server”, specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens”, and the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, results in merely “apply it” or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or mathematical calculations. Specifically a human could input the retrieved action code for the specific record into a permanence score model and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model. The fact that the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server”, the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform or mathematical calculations. Specifically a human could input the generated providence score, the action score, and the permeance score into a comprehensive risk score model and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model. The fact that the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” and the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could generate a provenance score reflective of the ownership history of the specific record. The fact that the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could generate a permanence score which is reflective of how the retrieved action references the underlying asset of the record. The fact that the actions are “smart contracts”, and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could generate a score which is reflective of a code related risk associated with the specific record. The fact that the actions are “smart contracts”, and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
13. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Gaur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0092436)
As per claim 1, Gaur et al. teaches A system for assessment of a risk score for a non- fungible token transacted on a blockchain comprising: (see paragraph 0029 and 0036, Examiner’s note: system for identifying risk associated with a digital asset (represented by a digital token) (see paragraph 0029), and a digital asset can be a non-fungible token (see paragraph 0036)).
a blockchain capable of implementing smart contracts for creation, storing, and transaction of non-fungible tokens; (see paragraphs 0033- 0036, Examiner’s note: teaches using blockchain where blockchain ledgers include digital assets (which can be non fungible tokens, see paragraph 0036) that be created and exchanged between different clients and users) further teaches the blockchain is stored (see paragraph 0033-0034)).
a processor-based server in electronic communications with the blockchain; (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0144, 0155-0157, Examiner’s note: shows here the teachings of Gaur et al. may be implemented in various server and processor arrangements including software running on a computer).
a database in electronic communications with a processor- based server capable of storing and retrieving data; (see paragraphs 0030-0031, 0086-0087 and 0100-0101, Examiner’s note: teaches a blockchain database and using the database to receive information).
the processor-based server configured to: (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0144, 0155-0157, Examiner’s note: shows here the teachings of Gaur et al. may be implemented in various server and processor arrangements including software running on a computer).
receive a request for assessment of a specific non- fungible token on the blockchain; scan the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token; retrieve metadata embedded within the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token;
derive an ownership history of the specific non- fungible token from the retrieved metadata; scan the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing a last transaction for the specific non-fungible token; retrieve smart contract code from the identified block containing the last transaction for the specific non- fungible token; (see paragraphs 0062-0065, 0083-0085, 0107-0109, and Figure 7B, Examiner’s note: determining risk based on information on the block chain (see paragraphs 0083-0085). Paragraphs 0107-0109, Figure 7B teaches metadata stored on the blockchain. Further paragraphs 0062-0065 teach the smart contract is used for performing the transactions on the blockchain).
generate a provenance score based on the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token; generate a smart contract score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token; generate a permanence score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token; (see paragraphs 0084, 0092, 0107-0109 and Figure 7B Examiner’s note: here the different data attributes like “total number of trades for the digital asset”, “total amount of the digital asset in circulation”, “type of the digital asset”, “reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset”, and the like are considered scores under broadest reasonable interpretation, which are derived from the blockchain, where the blockchain is formed from smart contracts (see paragraphs 0062-0065) and includes metadata (see paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B)).
and generate a comprehensive risk score for the specific non-fungible token based on the generated provenance score, smart contract score, and permanence score for the specific non-fungible token (see paragraphs 0042, 0048-0049, and 0085, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing data attributes to a risk data model to determine a risk score for the digital asset).
As per claim 5, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the generated providence score, the smart contract score, and the permanence score into a comprehensive risk score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model. (see paragraphs 0042, 0048-0049, and 0085, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing data attributes to a risk data model to determine a risk score for the digital asset).
As per claim 6, Gaur et al .teaches
wherein the provenance score is reflective of the ownership history of the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0084, 0092, 0107-0109 and Figure 7B Examiner’s note: here the different data attributes like “total number of trades for the digital asset”, “total amount of the digital asset in circulation”, “type of the digital asset”, “reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset”, and the like are considered scores under broadest reasonable interpretation, which are derived from the blockchain, where the blockchain is formed from smart contracts (see paragraphs 0062-0065) and includes metadata (see paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B)).
As per claim 7, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the permanence score is reflective of how the retrieved smart contract code references an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0040, 0084, 0092, 0107-0109 and Figure 7B Examiner’s note: here the different data attributes like “total number of trades for the digital asset”, “total amount of the digital asset in circulation”, “type of the digital asset”, “reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset”, and the like are considered scores under broadest reasonable interpretation, which are derived from the blockchain, where the blockchain is formed from smart contracts (see paragraphs 0062-0065) and includes metadata (see paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B) Further teach new tokens may trigger additional verification (see paragraph 0040)..
As per claim 8, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the smart contract score is reflective of code-related risk associated with the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0040, 0084, 0092, 0107-0109 and Figure 7B Examiner’s note: here the different data attributes like “total number of trades for the digital asset”, “total amount of the digital asset in circulation”, “type of the digital asset”, “reputation of the users on the native blockchain network of the digital asset”, and the like are considered scores under broadest reasonable interpretation, which are derived from the blockchain, where the blockchain is formed from smart contracts (see paragraphs 0062-0065) and includes metadata (see paragraphs 0107-0109 and Figure 7B). Further teach new tokens may trigger additional verification (see paragraph 0040)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gaur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0092436) further in view of Jiao CN 113704702A.
As per claim 2, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0144, 0155-0157, Examiner’s note: shows here the teachings of Gaur et al. may be implemented in various server and processor arrangements including software running on a computer).
input the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token, implemented by the processor-based server to generate a score (see paragraphs 0062-0065, 0083-0085, and 0107-0109, Examiner’s note: determining risk based on information on the block chain (see paragraphs 0083-0085). Paragraphs 0107-0109, Figure 7B teaches metadata stored on the blockchain. Further paragraphs 0062-0065 teach the smart contract is for performing the transactions on the blockchain).
While Gaur et al. clearly teaches collecting multiple elements and inputting them into a model to generate an overall risk (see paragraphs 0042, 0083-0085, and 0144-0188), Gaur et al. does not expressly teach modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the different numbers for all the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall singular score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input attribute information into a provenance score model and generate the providence score using the provenance score model
However, Jiao which is in the art of NFT authentication (see n0001-0002) teaches modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the numbers for the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input attribute information into a provenance score model and generate the providence score using the provenance score model (see n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071, Examiner’s note: here n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n044, n0070-n0071 teaches numerous different attributes being modeled for NFT in blockchain, specifically for one example, in n0020, if this happens defining the attribute as 100 otherwise as 0. The above modeled attributes are then put into the overall comprehensive score (n0045-0046)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gaur et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jiao with the motivation of providing a way to model different attributes onto a common scale to make an overall decision based on those attributes (see Jiao n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071), when modeling different attributes to make an overall singular decision is known (see Gaur et al. paragraphs 0042 and 0083-0085).
As per claim 3, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0144, 0155-0157, Examiner’s note: shows here the teachings of Gaur et al. may be implemented in various server and processor arrangements including software running on a computer).
input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, implemented by the processor-based server to generate a score (see paragraphs 0062-0065, 0083-0085, and 0107-0109, Examiner’s note: determining risk based on information on the block chain (see paragraphs 0083-0085). Paragraphs 0107-0109, Figure 7B teaches metadata stored on the blockchain. Further paragraphs 0062-0065 teach the smart contract is for performing the transactions on the blockchain).
While Gaur et al. clearly teaches collecting multiple elements and inputting them into a model to generate an overall risk (see paragraphs 0042, 0083-0085, and 0144-0188), Gaur et al. does not expressly teach modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the different numbers for all the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall singular score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input attribute information into a smart contract score model and generate the smart contract score using the smart contract score model.
However, Jiao which is in the art of NFT authentication (see n0001-0002) teaches modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input attribute information into a smart contract score model and generate the smart contract score using the smart contract score model (see n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071, Examiner’s note: here n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n044, n0070-n0071 teaches numerous different attributes being modeled for NFT in blockchain, specifically for one example, in n0020, if this happens defining the attribute as 100 otherwise as 0. The above modeled attributes are then put into the overall comprehensive score (n0045-0046)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gaur et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jiao with the motivation of providing a way to model different attributes onto a common scale to make an overall decision based on those attributes (see Jiao n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071), when modeling different attributes to make an overall singular decision is known (see Gaur et al. paragraphs 0042 and 0083-0085).
As per claim 4, Gaur et al. teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0144, 0155-0157, Examiner’s note: shows here the teachings of Gaur et al. may be implemented in various server and processor arrangements including software running on a computer).
input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, implemented by the processor-based server to generate a score (see paragraphs 0062-0065, 0083-0085, and 0107-0109, Examiner’s note: determining risk based on information on the block chain (see paragraphs 0083-0085). Paragraphs 0107-0109, Figure 7B teaches metadata stored on the blockchain. Further paragraphs 0062-0065 teach the smart contract is for performing the transactions on the blockchain).
While Gaur et al. clearly teaches collecting multiple elements and inputting them into a model to generate an overall risk (see paragraphs 0042, 0083-0085, and 0144-0188), Gaur et al. does not expressly teach modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the different numbers for all the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall singular score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input information into a permanence score model; and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model.
However, Jiao which is in the art of NFT authentication (see n0001-0002) teaches modeling each attribute into a common scale so that the different attributes can be compared to generate an overall score or risk or more specifically as recited in the claims of input attribute information into a permanence score model; and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model (see n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071, Examiner’s note: here n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n044, n0070-n0071 teaches numerous different attributes being modeled for NFT in blockchain, specifically for one example, in n0020, if this happens defining the attribute as 100 otherwise as 0. The above modeled attributes are then put into the overall comprehensive score (n0045-0046)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gaur et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Jiao with the motivation of providing a way to model different attributes onto a common scale to make an overall decision based on those attributes (see Jiao n0020, n0024, n0027, n0029-n0030, n0032, n0035, n0040-n0041, n0043-n046, n0070-n0071), when modeling different attributes to make an overall singular decision is known (see Gaur et al. paragraphs 0042 and 0083-0085).
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Kim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0101326) teaches determining suspicious behavior in a blockchain and calculating a risk score (see abstract)
b. Liu et al. (United States Patent Number: US 12,198,139) teaches calculating using machine learning blockchain risks via graph analysis (see abstract)
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights