DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1 – 20 in application 18/346,153.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Note: In regards to claim 1, “identifying” – applicant intent from the interview on November 10th, 2025 is that the URI is created or generated here because the claim is directed to the receipt creation process rather than the receipt retrieval process, however "identifying" in the claims seems to establish that the URI already exists.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to for the “second” delay time. There is no first delay time recited in claim 7 or claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Rather, the “first delay time” is introduced in claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 still recites in the limitations a series of steps that amount to a commercial transaction workflow. This is a fundamental economic practice and thus a “certain method of organizing human activity.” See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11/14/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-21 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.
Step 1
Claims 1 –21 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, such as processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter, because claims 1–11 and 14–21 are directed to a method while claims 12 and 13 each recite an apparatus. Therefore, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (see MPEP § 2106, subsection I).
The claims, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim, as a whole, fall under the methods of organizing human activity grouping of the Subject Matter Groupings of Abstract Ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following elements (emphasis added on additional element(s) and/or intended use/result elements):
1. A method, comprising:
generating, contemporaneously with the first transaction, metadata representing details of the transfer of assets extracted throughout the first transaction, the details including data associated with a transaction request and a payment request;
receiving a request for a first transaction over a blockchain network, the first transaction comprising a transfer of assets between a target node to a recipient node, the target node and the recipient node being included in a blockchain network;
identifying, by the recipient node, a uniform resource indicator (URI) representing the metadata representing the details of the transfer of assets;
causing execution of a function of a first smart contract to generate a first hash value, wherein the first hash value is generated based in part on one or more blockchain addresses associated with the transfer of assets, and wherein the first smart contract is deployed in association with one of the one or more blockchain addresses associated with the transfer of assets;
causing execution of a function of a second smart contract deployed in association with a blockchain address associated with the target node, wherein the execution of the function of the second smart contract includes recording the first hash value in the first smart contract for subsequent verification;
in response to verifying that the first transaction representing the transfer of assets is authorized to be carried out, causing at least one second transaction to be generated, the at least one second transaction causing generation of a pair of non-fungible tokens each comprising URI; and
wherein the pair of non-fungible tokens enables the target node and the recipient node, respectively, to retrieve the metadata via the URI; and
causing transmission of one non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens to the target node and the other non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens to the recipient node..
As drafted, the elements that are not bolded represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to an asset transfer from a target to a recipient with receipt tokens, which is a form of commercial interaction related to manage interactions between people; therefore, the process falls under Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, this Step 2A Prong 1 analysis concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are bolded above.
The additional elements are: blockchain network, first smart contract, second smart contract, hash value, URL, and non-fungible tokens. These elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., a blockchain environment. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application.
The additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element amount to a processing environment of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For these reasons, the independent claims (including claims 12 and 13) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
The remaining dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims do not introduce additional elements; and performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of independent claims, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field; therefore, the claims amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 recites: wherein each non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens comprises contact information of the target node and the recipient node and asset transaction information, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites: further comprising: determining that the transaction is authorized, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites: wherein determining that the transaction is authorized comprises determining that the target node is identified as an entity allowed to perform the second transaction operation, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the second transaction operation comprises a shipment of at least one of the assets, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites: further comprising: monitoring completion of the shipment within a set shipment time period, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites: further comprising: monitoring completion of the first transaction operation, by the recipient node, within a set time period, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites: further comprising: receiving, from the recipient node, a refund request comprising an NFT a non-fungible token identifying a past transaction; and processing the refund for the past transaction, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites: further comprising: determining a balance of an account of at least one of the target node and the recipient node, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 recites: wherein generating the pair of non-fungible tokens is queued in a chain of transactions, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the chain of transactions are rearranged based on a history and priority of transactions, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites: further comprising: adding a first delay time after receiving the first result of the first transaction operation; and verifying a validity of the first transaction operation at predefined time intervals during the first delay time, which is merely further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites: further comprising: minting the token of the first result in response to verifying the validity of the first transaction, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites: further comprising: determining whether a maximum number of retries to validate the first transaction operation has been reached if the validity is not confirmed, and determining that the first transaction operation has failed if the maximum number of retries has been reached, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites: further comprising: adding a second delay time corresponding to a set second time interval before generating the pair of non-fungible tokens, and verifying a validity of generating the pair of non-fungible tokens at predefined time intervals during the second delay time, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites: further comprising: generating the pair of non-fungible tokens in response to verifying the validity of generating the pair of non-fungible tokens, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites: further comprising: determining whether a maximum number of retries to validate the generating the pair of non-fungible tokens has been reached if the validity is not confirmed, and determining that the generating the pair of non-fungible tokens has failed if the maximum number of retries has been reached, which is further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites: further comprising: determining whether a predefined period of time has lapsed since a completion of the past transaction; and denying the refund for the past transaction in response to that the predefined period of time has lapsed, which further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites: The method of claim 8, wherein processing the refund comprises: using the non-fungible token to retrieve metadata associated with the past transaction, the metadata comprising one or more of entity identifiers, currency type, transaction amount, or digital media; determining, based on the metadata, whether the refund request is received within a predefined time period since a completion of the past transaction; and if the refund request is received within the predefined time period, processing the refund, which further defining the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B, so the dependent claims are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu (US20210258169A1) in view of Roberts (US20220222364A1) and in further view of Madisetti (US20180374091A1) and in further view of Jakobsson (US20230075884A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13. Basu teaches:
A method
Basu - a method (¶ 0005).
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one program for execution by one or more processors of a first device, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first device to perform operations
Basu - A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire (¶0133).
A system, comprising:
Basu - Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, configuration data for integrated circuitry, or either source code or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++, or the like, and procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages (¶ 0135).
receiving a request for a first transaction over a blockchain network, the first transaction comprising a transfer of assets between a target node to a recipient node, the target node and the recipient node being included in a blockchain network;
Basu - A transaction is received by invoking the first smart contract (¶ 0005). a first smart contract on a first blockchain platform restricting access to a client's funds… After receiving…tickets…the funds are released (¶ 0006).
causing execution of a function of a second smart contract deployed in association with a blockchain address associated with the target node, wherein the execution of the function of the second smart contract includes recording the first hash value in the first smart contract for subsequent verification;
Basu - a first smart contract on a first blockchain platform restricting access to a client's funds appropriated to a second smart contract running on a second blockchain platform (¶ 0005). The invoked smart contract receives the set of authorization information and records the set of authorization information (¶ 0006).
in response to verifying that the first transaction representing the transfer of assets is authorized to be carried out,
Basu - responsive to receiving an indication of a successful completion of the first smart contract, sending a plurality of client's authorization tickets to the second smart contract (Claim 1).
Basu does not teach, however Robert discloses the following:
generating, contemporaneously with the first transaction, metadata representing details of the transfer of assets extracted throughout the first transaction, the details including data associated with a transaction request and a payment request;
Note – “terms of a transaction” = transaction request context; “offer price” = payment request data. These are metadata/extras created/associated during NFT creation/update.
Roberts - Examples of on-chain NFT extras can include: an ID for a creator of the NFT; a list of transactions of the NFT (which may have context specifics such as a natural language description of a sale context, terms of a transaction, identifier of a transaction mediator—e.g., auction house)… a current offer price for selling the NFT (¶ 0020).
identifying, by the recipient node, a uniform resource locator indicator (URI) representing the metadata associated with representing the details of the transfer of assets;
Roberts - Links to off-chain data objects can be in the form of a URI, an IPFS address (¶ 0019). each off-chain NFT extra record can include a name, a data type the off-chain NFT extra links to, a description, and a link (¶ 0023). all NFT extras are stored off-chain, with pointers to the NFT extra data stored on-chain in the NFT (¶ 0032).
each comprising the uniform resource locator URI;
Roberts - each off-chain NFT extra record can include a name, a data type the off-chain NFT extra links to, a description, and a link (¶ 0023). all NFT extras are stored off-chain, with pointers to the NFT extra data stored on-chain in the NFT. In addition to the data or link, each NFT extra can specify an identifier (e.g., field name by which the NFT extra can be referenced) (¶ 0032).
wherein the pair of non-fungible tokens enables the target node and the recipient node, respectively, to retrieve the metadata via the URI; and
Roberts - each off-chain NFT extra record can include a name, a data type the off-chain NFT extra links to, a description, and a link (¶ 0023). all NFT extras are stored off-chain, with pointers to the NFT extra data stored on-chain in the NFT. In addition to the data or link, each NFT extra can specify an identifier (e.g., field name by which the NFT extra can be referenced) (¶ 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu with the URI linking techniques of Roberts because doing so improves interoperability and verifiability of the transaction by enabling participating nodes to retrieve and confirm transaction details via standardized NFT metadata pointers while retaining Basu’s automated smart-contract authorization flow.
The combination of Basu and Robert does not disclose, however Madisetti discloses the following:
causing execution of a function of a first smart contract to generate a first hash value, wherein the first hash value is generated based in part on one or more blockchain addresses associated with the transfer of assets, and
Madisetti - receiving from the user a user certification record address, hashed user identification information that has been signed with a private key of the user defined as received user identification information, hashed object information defined as received object information, and a user public key (¶ 0014).
wherein the first smart contract is deployed in association with one of the one or more blockchain addresses associated with the transfer of assets;
Madisetti - recording to a digital certificate smart contract deployed at a digital certificate smart contract address…smart contract deployed at a digital certificate smart contract address on a blockchain network (¶ 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts with the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti because doing so strengthens integrity, authentication, and traceability of blockchain transactions.
The combination of Basu, Roberts, and Madisetti does not disclose, however Jakobsson discloses the following:
causing at least one second transaction to be generated, the at least one second transaction causing generation of a pair of non-fungible tokens
Jakobsson - the first NFT buyer 2420 may choose to generate two spawned NFTs from the initial NFT 2415: first buyer NFT spawn A 2425 and first buyer NFT spawn B 2430 (¶ 0359).
causing transmission of one non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens to the target node and the other non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens to the recipient node.
Jakobsson - A second buyer 2435 may purchase the first buyer NFT spawn A 2425 and a third buyer 2440 may purchase the first buyer NFT spawn B 2430 (¶ 0359).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
Regarding Claim 2. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein each non-fungible token of the pair of non-fungible tokens comprises contact information of the target node and the recipient node and asset transaction information.
Roberts - NFT such as a history of owners, identifying information for the creator of the NFT, a current offered sale price, past selling prices, contact information for a current owner, links to conversation threads about the NFT (¶ 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the first transaction is authorized.
Basu - Specifically, second blockchain smart contracts must be able to hold funds, track balances, and to recognize when the release of these funds is authorized by the proper entity. To secure their second blockchain coins, the client transfers their funds to a smart contract on second blockchain. The smart contract tracks the balance of the user's account and releases the coins only when authorized by a first blockchain. This smart contract may be called the second blockchain bank. The client must also have a first blockchain account and wallet, and it must register with the first blockchain smart contract. However, this workload is a one-time event, and does not need to be repeated even if the user wishes to secure multiple coins (¶ 0100).
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 3, wherein determining that the first transaction is authorized comprises determining that the target node is identified as an entity authorized to carry out the transfer of assets.
Basu - Specifically, second blockchain smart contracts must be able to hold funds, track balances, and to recognize when the release of these funds is authorized by the proper entity. To secure their second blockchain coins, the client transfers their funds to a smart contract on second blockchain. The smart contract tracks the balance of the user's account and releases the coins only when authorized by a first blockchain. This smart contract may be called the second blockchain bank. The client must also have a first blockchain account and wallet, and it must register with the first blockchain smart contract. However, this workload is a one-time event, and does not need to be repeated even if the user wishes to secure multiple coins (¶ 0100).
Regarding Claim 5. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first transaction comprises a shipment of at least one of the assets.
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 5, further comprising: monitoring completion of the shipment within a set shipment time period.
Basu - To release funds in the disclosed system, a client writes a transaction to the first blockchain. Special authorizers monitor the blockchain and provide tickets to the client authorizing the release of the client's funds. The client can then call the second blockchain bank smart contract with these tickets to release their funds (¶ 0101).
Regarding Claim 7. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring completion of the second transaction, by the recipient node, within a set time period.
Basu - To release funds in the disclosed system, a client writes a transaction to the first blockchain. Special authorizers monitor the blockchain and provide tickets to the client authorizing the release of the client's funds. The client can then call the second blockchain bank smart contract with these tickets to release their funds (¶ 0101).
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a balance of an account of at least one of the target node and the recipient node.
Basu - Specifically, second blockchain smart contracts must be able to hold funds, track balances, and to recognize when the release of these funds is authorized by the proper entity. To secure their second blockchain coins, the client transfers their funds to a smart contract on second blockchain. The smart contract tracks the balance of the user's account and releases the coins only when authorized by a first blockchain. This smart contract may be called the second blockchain bank. The client must also have a first blockchain account and wallet, and it must register with the first blockchain smart contract. However, this workload is a one-time event, and does not need to be repeated even if the user wishes to secure multiple coins (¶ 0100).
Regarding Claim 10. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the pair of non-fungible tokens is queued in a chain of transactions.
Jakobsson - Before the user confirms, the element may remain in a queue that corresponds to not being visible to the outside world. When users decline given classifications, they may be asked whether alternative classifications should be automatically performed for such elements onwards. In accordance with some embodiments, the selection of alternative classifications may be based on manual user classification taking place subsequent to the refusal (¶ 0228).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
Regarding Claim 11. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 10, wherein the chain of transactions is rearranged based on a history and priority of transactions.
Basu - The term “sharder” refers to a computing system that that keeps tracks of its blockchain history. They are a single source of truth regarding any given transaction (¶ 0042).
Regarding Claim 14. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating a first delay time after receiving a first result of the second transaction; and verifying a validity of the second transaction at predefined time intervals during the first delay time.
Basu - The current blockchain platform and related applications known to the industry fall short in multiple ways. First, there is no separation of roles on the blockchain based on the role of an entity for a given transaction. Each transaction follows a strict chain of rules and is dependent on its preceding transaction. If one transaction fails, all subsequent transactions on the blockchain become unusable. The computing time and built in delay in any blockchain platform is dependent on the available computing resources of its nodes. In absence of a role model, a single node has several computing intense tasks that are slow to execute. A slow system becomes vulnerable and becomes open to attacks. The current solutions do not allow for client flexibility in developing distributed applications with immutability and finality of transactions on a blockchain platform (¶ 0025).
Regarding Claim 15. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: generating data to be used in the pair of non-fungible tokens in response to verifying the validity of the first transaction.
Basu - a first smart contract on a first blockchain platform restricting access to a client's funds appropriated to a second smart contract running on a second blockchain platform (¶ 0005). The invoked smart contract receives the set of authorization information and records the set of authorization information (¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 16. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: determining whether a maximum number of retries to validate the second transaction has been reached if the validity is not confirmed, and determining that the second transaction has failed if the maximum number of retries has been reached.
Jakobsson - Crypto-wallet functionality may enable the minting of spawned NFTs. The creator policy may enable or disable current NFT owners from enjoying continued access to the asset upon sale of the NFT that the current NFT owner bought/paid for. In this manner, the creator and current NFT owner may both enjoy an economic appreciation of the asset as their influence spreads and popularity increases. Creators may enjoy continued streams of royalties based upon marketplace demands. Creators, by policy, can control the pricing when they wish. For instance, a musician creator may specify a single price for which all spawned NFTs must sell at, a minimum and/or a maximum price (¶ 0356).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
Regarding Claim 17. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: adding a second delay time corresponding to a set second time interval before generating the pair of non-fungible tokens, and verifying a validity of generating the pair of non-fungible tokens at predefined time intervals during the second delay time.
Jakobsson - Alternatively, the first party may initiate the commitment of funds, conditional on the remaining funds being raised within a specified time interval. The commitment of funds may occur through posting the commitment to a ledger. Committing funds may produce smart contracts that are conditional on other events, namely the payments needed to complete the real estate transaction. The smart contract also may have one or more additional conditions associated with it. For example, an additional condition may be the reversal of the payment if, after a specified amount of time, the other funds have not been raised. Another condition may be related to the satisfactory completion of an inspection and/or additional valuation (¶ 0246).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
(Regarding Claim 18. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 17, further comprising: generating the pair of non-fungible tokens in response to verifying the validity of generating the pair of non-fungible tokens.
Basu - The subtleties and challenges involved in key generation, maintenance and management are well known in security industry and both cryptographic and policy based solutions have been devised in the past. However, in the context of cryptocurrencies, there are no satisfactory solutions that would help scalability or ease of use. The second major concern is related to computational efficiency of the tasks performed during the execution of the protocols. One of the most computationally intense and most frequently used cryptographic primitives in blockchain technology is digital signatures. The users need to generate every transaction with appropriate authentication done on the transaction and the miners or validators need to verify/validate the same multiple number of times (¶ 0058).
Regarding Claim 19. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson further discloses the following:
The method of claim 17, further comprising: determining whether a maximum number of retries to validate the generating the pair of non-fungible tokens has been reached if the validity is not confirmed, and determining that the generating the pair of non-fungible tokens has failed if the maximum number of retries has been reached.
Jakobsson - The consumers may thus access the created content and optionally e.g., interact with, modify and/or change the content. Hereinafter, any type of action a consumer takes and/or fails to take when being provided with the content may be referred to as “action”. Example actions may include (but are not limited to) be how many likes they assign to a content version, interrupt the playback, indicate that they particularly liked one segment by pressing the “I like this part” button as the content may be played, etc. The method may also include the node receiving information and/or data about action(s) taken by the consumers with regard to the content. The method may also include providing feedback to the content creators based on the received information and/or data about action(s) taken by the consumers (¶ 0487).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti with the two NFTs of Jakobsson because doing so provides multiple tokenized records associated with a single transaction event.
Claim(s) 8, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu in view of Roberts and in further view of Madisetti and in further view of Jakobsson and in further view of Browne (US20140323082A1).
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, and Jakobsson does not disclose, however Browne discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the recipient node, a refund request comprising a non-fungible token identifying a past transaction; and processing the refund for the past transaction.
Browne - the merchant server 14 will at 112 send a cancel request to the billing server 16 to cancel the outstanding authorization (¶ 0034). A cancel API call includes a cancel request that cancels a previously authorized transaction from a customer, releasing any reserved funds at the carrier server 18… this request should result in a refund in the full amount specified in the referenced authorization call (¶ 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti and the two NFTs of Jakobsson with the refund of Browne because doing so improves usability and consumer protection in tokenized transactions.
Regarding Claim 20. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, Jakobsson and Browne further discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether a predefined period of time has lapsed since a completion of the past transaction; and denying the refund for the past transaction in response to that the predefined period of time has lapsed.
Browne - allow the consumer to cancel the service within a specified time period, in which case the merchant server 14 will not capture the authorization. Otherwise, if the consumer does not cancel, the merchant server 14 captures the authorization to charge the consumer (¶ 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti and the two NFTs of Jakobsson with the refund of Browne because doing so improves usability and consumer protection in tokenized transactions.
Regarding Claim 21. The combination of Basu, Roberts, Madisetti, Jakobsson and Browne further discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein processing the refund comprises: using the non-fungible token to retrieve metadata associated with the past transaction, the metadata comprising one or more of entity identifiers, currency type, transaction amount, or digital media; determining, based on the metadata, whether the refund request is received within a predefined time period since a completion of the past transaction; and if the refund request is received within the predefined time period, processing the refund.
Browne - the merchant server 14 will at 112 send a cancel request to the billing server 16 to cancel the outstanding authorization (¶ 0034). A cancel API call includes a cancel request that cancels a previously authorized transaction from a customer, releasing any reserved funds at the carrier server 18… this request should result in a refund in the full amount specified in the referenced authorization call (¶ 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain smart contract transfer framework of Basu and the URI linking techniques of Roberts and the blockchain recording of hashed identity information of Madisetti and the two NFTs of Jakobsson with the refund of Browne because doing so improves usability and consumer protection in tokenized transactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Williams (US20210133700A1) - A system and corresponding method exchange a nonfungible token (NFT) via blockchain cross-chain fungible token transfers. The system comprises first and second blockchains. The first blockchain holds the NFT in a first escrow digital wallet. The NFT is available for trade by a seller and is associated with a trade value. The first blockchain monitors a balance of fungible tokens, owned by a buyer, that are transferred from a second blockchain to a second escrow digital wallet of the first blockchain. In response to detecting that the balance monitored represents the trade value, the first blockchain transfers, simultaneously, (i) the NFT from the first escrow digital wallet to a first digital wallet of the first blockchain, the first digital wallet owned by the buyer, and (ii) the balance of fungible tokens from the second escrow digital wallet to a second digital wallet of the second blockchain, the second digital wallet owned by the seller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA C STEVENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Mcatee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/C.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698