DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 08/08/2025.
Claims 1 and 65 have been amended.
Claims 76-82 have been added.
Claims 37-43 have been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 65-82 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 08/08/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 and 65-82 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (USPGP 2023/0179421 A1) hereinafter ROJAS, in view of Welch et al. (US 12,229,622 B1), hereinafter WELCH, and further in view of Sharif-Ahmadi (USPGP 2013/0024901 A1), hereinafter SHARIF.
Claims 1, 65, 66, 76:
ROJAS as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method for electronic ticket validation with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in a blockchain network, the method executed by a processor of a server in a cloud network, the method comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0043, 0071, 0076; Figure 1b as well as associated and related text)
receiving a wallet address of a wallet in the blockchain network; (see at least paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0043, 0071, 0076; Figure 1b as well as associated and related text)
querying blockchain data based on the wallet address to identify a NFT identifier in the wallet; (see at least paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0043, 0071, 0076; Figure 1b as well as associated and related text)
determining whether the NFT identifier matches at least one in a list of pre-approved NFT identifiers; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0095-0102)
retrieving a digital image corresponding to the NFT identifier determined to match at least one identifier in the list of pre-approved NFT identifiers; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0051, 0095-0102)
ROJAS does not specifically disclose:
responsive to finding a match, randomly selecting an animation from a repository of animations, wherein each animation is different from all other animations in the repository; (see at least column 24, lines 7-11)
generating a combination of the selected animation and the retrieved digital image; and
However, WELCH, in at least Column 24, lines 7-11; Column 24, lines 34-35; Figures 4C, 4D, and 10 as well as associated and related text does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ROJAS with the technique of WELCH because, “Computer based and/or electronic gaming systems are known to provide a shared virtual or augmented environment for many players to interact in a virtual world.” (WELCH: column 1, lines 17-20). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH does not specifically disclose transmitting the combination to a ticketholder-device and to a validation-device, wherein responsive to receiving the transmission, the ticketholder-device and the validation-device synchronously display the combination. SHARIF however, in at least paragraph 0123 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ROJAS/WELCH with the technique of SHARIF because, “Computer based and/or electronic gaming systems are known to provide a shared virtual or augmented environment for many players to interact in a virtual world.” (WELCH: column 1, lines 17-20). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 69, 77:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
identifying a plurality of NFT identifiers in the wallet; (see at least paragraph 0025)
determining whether individual ones in the plurality of NFT identifiers match corresponding ones in the list of pre-approved NFT identifiers; (see at least paragraph 0031)
retrieving digital images corresponding to individual ones in the plurality of NFT identifiers determined to match at least one in the list of pre-approved NFT identifiers; (see at least paragraph 0008)
transmitting the retrieved digital images to the ticketholder-device for display and selection; (see at least Figure 3 as well as associated and related text)
receiving a selection of one of the digital images from the ticketholder-device, wherein the digital image in the combination is the selected one of the digital images. (see at least Figure 3 as well as associated and related text)
Claims 3, 70, 78:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
sending, by the server to a wallet application through the ticketholder-device, a request for the wallet address, wherein the wallet application is configured to execute remotely from the server.
See at least paragraph 0076.
Claims 4, 71:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the wallet application is configured to execute in the ticketholder-device.
See at least paragraph 0023.
Claims 5, 72, 79:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
generating an electronic ticket; and
associating the electronic ticket with the list of pre-approved NFTs.
See at least Figure 4A as well as associated and related text.
Claims 6, 73, 80:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the electronic ticket is one of:
(a) a QR-code or (b) a barcode.
See at least paragraph 0026.
Claims 7, 74, 81:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROJAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the synchronous display in the ticketholder-device and the validation-device of the combination of the selected animation and the digital image validates the electronic ticket and corresponding entry credentials of a ticketholder.
See at least paragraph 0044.
Claims 8, 68, 82:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WELCH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the animation is randomly selected after receiving a request for entry from the ticketholder-device.
See at least Column 24, lines 7-11; Column 24, lines 34-35. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ROJAS with the technique of WELCH because, “Computer based and/or electronic gaming systems are known to provide a shared virtual or augmented environment for many players to interact in a virtual world.” (WELCH: column 1, lines 17-20). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 9, 75:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WELCH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein:
the NFT identifier is a first NFT identifier, the digital image is a first digital image, a second NFT identifier corresponds to a second digital image, and the second digital image is distinct from the first digital image.
See at least Figure 4A as well as associated and related text.
Claim 67:
The combination of ROJAS/WELCH/SHARIF discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WELCH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second digital image is a solid color swatch.
See at least paragraph 0033.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Incode. “NFT Ticketing: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Benefits (December 12, 2022). Retrieved online 05/08/2025. https://incode.com/blog/nft-ticket/
Onkar Singh. “What is NFT ticketing and how does it work?” (Feb 14, 2023). Retrieved online 05/08/2025. https://cointelegraph.com/news/what-is-nft-ticketing-and-how-does-it-work
Ferdinand Regner et al. “NFTs in Practice.” (December 2019). Retrieved online 05/08/2025. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336057493_NFTs_in_Practice_-_Non-Fungible_Tokens_as_Core_Component_of_a_Blockchain-based_Event_Ticketing_Application
Foreign Art:
BLIVEN et al. “Method For Generating Digital Token That Uniquely Represents Item, Involves Cryptographically Linking Unique Digital Token And Unique Identifier For Unique Unit Of Item Such That Unique Digital Token Of Unique Digital Representation.” (WO 2020/092900 A2)
LEBEAU et al. “Method For Registering Digital Content With Decentralized Distribution System, Involves Creating Set Of Electronics Tokens In Response To Information That Corresponds To User's Interactions With User Interface Of Front End Computing System.” (WO 2018/213672 A1)
BLACK et al. “Booking Information Tracking System For Use In E.g. Amusement Park, Has Data Processing Hardware Determining That User Is Logged In To User Account, And Displaying Dashboard Of User Account.” (WO 2023/044553 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/08/2025 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)