DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 15 August 2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This patent Application claims priority from Foreign Application No. TW112120416 filed 05/31/2023. This patent Application also claims priority from Provisional Patent No. 63/350,431 filed 06/09/2022. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 06/09/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to a process, claims 10-12 are directed to a machine, and claims 13-20 are directed to a process. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES) MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A
It is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Prong 1 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea, including:
An exhibiting method of NFT product, applied to displaying multiple NFT products on a NFT trading website, each NFT product has a price and a rarity ranking, the exhibiting method of NFT product comprising:
a. sorting the NFT products to generate a first NFT product price sequence table according to the prices of the NFT products;
b. analyzing the first NFT product price sequence table and sorting the NFT products with the same price according to the order of rarity ranking, and moving out the NFT products whose rarity ranking is not the first in the same price to generate a second NFT product price sequence table;
c. comparing the rarity rankings of the two adjacent NFT products according to the second NFT product price sequence table, the two adjacent NFT products are respectively defined as a previous NFT product and a later NFT product, if the rarity ranking of the later NFT product is lower than the rarity ranking of the previous NFT product, then moving out the later NFT product, the NFT product originally located after the later NFT product will be replenished forward and become adjacent to the previous NFT product;
d. repeating step c until the rarity ranking of the later NFT product is higher than the rarity ranking of the previous NFT product in any two adjacent NFT products, so as to generate a third NFT product price sequence table;
e. defining multiple sections in a website according to the number of NFT products in the third NFT product price sequence table, each section includes multiple blocks;
and f. sequentially displaying the NFT products in the third NFT product price sequence table in the first block of each section.
The above bolded limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions. Claims 10 and 13 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 10, and 13 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES). MPEP 2106.04(a).
Prong 2 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claims 1, 10, and 13 recite the additional elements of a NFT trading website, a website, wherein steps (a) to (f) are executed by software, a firmware component, or a hardware component; wherein the hardware component is a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a microcontroller unit. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Additionally, the independent claims merely invoke these additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). MPEP 2106.05(h). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Furthermore, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (the internet/a website).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claims 1, 10, and 13 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 10, and 13 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
It is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
As discussed above under Prong 2 of Step 2A with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the identified additional elements are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 13 do not add anything that is not already present when they are
considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations
in claims 1, 10, and 13 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible
application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
itself (Step 2B: NO). MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent claims, 2-9, 11-12, and 13-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
More specifically, dependent claims, 2-9, 11-12, and 13-20, further fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite sales activities or behaviors. Claims 2-9, 11-12, and 13-20 do not introduce new additional elements and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, the dependent claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, and 13-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea.
Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 10, and 13, the dependent
claims analyzed individually, and as an ordered combination, merely invoke such
additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims 1-20 are considered to be allowable over the prior art for the reasons given in the non-final office action mailed 19 May 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 August 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the technical content reflects specific implementations designed to achieve particular display effects and computational outcomes; and 2) The additional elements described in claim 1 are designed to solve practical problems in existing NFT trading systems that is non-conventional, specific, not well-understood, and not routine and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In response to argument 1) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection above claim 1 recites: a. sorting the NFT products to generate a first NFT product price sequence table according to the prices of the NFT products; b. analyzing the first NFT product price sequence table and sorting the NFT products with the same price according to the order of rarity ranking, and moving out the NFT products whose rarity ranking is not the first in the same price to generate a second NFT product price sequence table; c. comparing the rarity rankings of the two adjacent NFT products according to the second NFT product price sequence table, the two adjacent NFT products are respectively defined as a previous NFT product and a later NFT product, if the rarity ranking of the later NFT product is lower than the rarity ranking of the previous NFT product, then moving out the later NFT product, the NFT product originally located after the later NFT product will be replenished forward and become adjacent to the previous NFT product; d. repeating step c until the rarity ranking of the later NFT product is higher than the rarity ranking of the previous NFT product in any two adjacent NFT products, so as to generate a third NFT product price sequence table; e. defining multiple sections according to the number of NFT products in the third NFT product price sequence table, each section includes multiple blocks; and f. sequentially displaying the NFT products in the third NFT product price sequence table in the first block of each section. Steps a.-d. are directed towards ranking a plurality of NFT products based off of a price. The price of the NFTs are based on a character pattern/property of each NFT, which translates to the claimed rarity ranking. Paragraph [0006] of the Applicant’s specification explains:
Based on the law of supply and demand in economics, compared to other character patterns, the "rarer" character patterns should theoretically have a higher price in the market, which is the market clearing price in economics. In some cases, rarity may only depend on the supply on the supply side, but in some cases, for the rarity, the demand on the demand side must also be considered. For example, in the 10,000 character patterns, the number of property A is twice the number of property B, but the market consumption model determines that the market preference degree (potential demand degree) of property A is ten times the market preference degree of characteristic B. Then, a character pattern with property A will be considered rarer than a character pattern with property B.
As explained in paragraph [0006] the price sequence table rankings are based off the fundamental economic principal of supply and demand, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Claim 1 further recites steps e.-f. Steps e.-f. are directed towards how the NFT products are arranged and displayed. The order of the products is based off of the rankings determined in steps a.-d. The purpose of displaying the ranked NFT products is to assist a buyer in determining whether the price for the NFT products is reasonable and whether there is room for value-added in the future as explained in paragraph [0007] of the Applicant’s specification. Assisting a user in making a purchase for a product is a business activity that also falls under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the Examiner maintains claim 1 recites an abstract idea. It is noted in step e. the NFT products are displayed in according to a respective section of a website. However, the website is an additional element that is addressed in step 2a, prong 1, and in step 2b, and will be addressed in argument 2) below.
In response to argument 2) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the invention as claimed provides the technical improvement of “simultaneously sort and display the number, price, and rarity ranking of NFT products.” However, as noted in the response to argument 1) above, the number, price and rarity ranking of the NFT products are part of the abstract idea because they are being utilized in the basic economic principal of supply and demand. USPTO guidance uses the term “additional elements” to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Since the improvements are directed to the abstract idea, they cannot be considered a technical improvement. Only an additional element or combination of additional elements can integrate the exception into a practical application or render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements recited in claim 1 include: a NFT trading website, a website, wherein steps (a) to (f) are executed by software, a firmware component, or a hardware component; wherein the hardware component is a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a microcontroller unit. The claimed websites, software, firmware, and hardware component merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e., the three-stage sorting and comparison process to generate price sequence tables) on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It is also noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim directs the invention to just software due to the “or” in the limitation, “wherein steps (a) to (f) are executed by software, a firmware component, or a hardware component.” Furthermore, the specification of the hardware component being a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a microcontroller unit are all generic computer components. Applying an abstract idea to a computer does not integrate an abstract idea to a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore the Examiner maintains the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 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 RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628