Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
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 RCE filed on November 28, 2025.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260515 for references purposes only.
IDS
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 13, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 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 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of processing a request to access data, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 1, representative of claims 10 and 19, includes the following limitations:
Receiving a login request for a user account, wherein the login request includes a digital signature generated using a private key stored in a digital wallet connected to the user account;
Processing the login request by verifying the digital signature using a public key associated with the user;
Receiving a search query for digital assets;
Obtaining asset data associated with the digital assets based on transmitting data retrieval requests via APIs associated with a plurality of public blockchain networks and digital marketplaces;
Displaying a subset of the obtained asset data that is associated with the digital assets;
Receiving a selection and request to acquire a first digital asset;
Processing a resource transfer from a first account, wherein a resource transfer is received via the digital wallet.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A processor;
A memory;
Digital asset platform;
A client device;
A user interface.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are 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);
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory”, “a client device”, and “a user interface” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory”, “a client device”, and “a user interface” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory”, “a client device”, and “a user interface” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of a “digital asset platform” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of a “digital asset platform” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of a “digital asset platform” is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, a “digital asset platform” merely limits the claims to the computer field. See FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites the digital assets comprise at least one NFT, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites transmitting data retrieval requests, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the data retrieval requests are transmitted in response to receiving the request, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the asset data is obtained via WebSocket interfaces, which generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 6 recites receiving a request to connect a digital wallet, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 6 also recites storing authentication credentials, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the digital wallet is a Web3 wallet, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sliwka et al. (US 2024/0428306) in view of Bernardi (US 2024/0185191).
Claims 1, 10, 19
Sliwka discloses:
a processor (processor, see [1277]);
a memory (memory, see [1283]) storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to:
receive, via a digital asset platform (platform, see [0154]), a login request (transact on platform, e.g. email address and login, see [0163]) for logging in to a user account (account, see [0163]) on the digital asset platform;
receive, via a client device (user device, see [0142]) of the authenticated user, input of a search query (search query, see [0180]) to initiate search of digital assets (search terms for items, see [0180]) via the digital asset platform;
obtain asset data (information on the item, attributes of the item, see [0139, 0170]) associated with one or more digital assets (digital asset, see [0130]) based on transmitting data retrieval requests via application programming interfaces (APIs) (API, see [0140, 0157]) associated with a plurality of public blockchain networks (blockchains, see [0138-0139]) and digital asset marketplaces (external data sources, e.g. merchant, manufacturer, service provider system, see [0140]);
cause to be selectively displayed, via a user interface (GUI, see [0181]) of the digital asset platform on the client device, a subset (filter item by category or other attribute, see [0181]) of the obtained asset data that is associated with the one or more first digital assets;
receive, via the client device, a selection of a user interface element corresponding to a first one of the digital assets (select a link corresponding to an item, see [0181]) and a request to acquire (elects to purchase an item, see [0182]) the selected first digital asset; and
process a resource transfer (transfer ownership of token, see [0182]) from a first resource account (account of buyer, see [0182]) associated with the user account in connection with acquiring the selected first digital asset, wherein the processing includes determining that a resource transfer is received via the digital wallet (token transferred to a wallet account of user, see [0182]) connected to the user account.
Sliwka does not disclose:
The login request… account;
Process the login… user.
Bernardi teaches:
the login request (login process, see [0563]) including a digital signature generated using a private key (private key, see [0563]) stored in a digital wallet (wallet, see [0725]) that is connected to the user account;
process the login request to authenticate the user (validate the user, see [0563]) based on verifying the digital signature using a public key (public key, see [0563]) associated with the user.
Sliwka discloses a processor, a memory, receiving a login request, receiving a search query, obtaining asset data, displaying a subset of the obtained asset data, receiving selection of a user interface element, and processing a resource transfer. Sliwka does not disclose the login request includes a digital signature and authenticating the user, but Bernardi does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the techniques and smart contracts for facilitating automatic retrieval of non-fungible tokens on a blockchain of Sliwka with the login request includes a digital signature and authenticating the user of Bernardi because 1) a need exists for blockchains that provide smart contract functionality (see Sliwka [0003]); and 2) a need exists for a secure NFT platform (see Bernardi [0002-0006]). Having the login request include a digital signature and authenticating the user ensures a more secure platform to transact NFTs.
Claims 2, 11, 20
Furthermore, Sliwka discloses:
the digital assets comprise at least one non-fungible token (NFT) (NFT, see abstract, [0174]).
Claims 3, 12
Furthermore, Sliwka discloses:
obtaining the asset data associated with the one or more digital assets comprises transmitting, to multiple public blockchain networks (different blockchains, see [1075]) and digital asset marketplaces via a batch process (batch processes, see [1075]), data retrieval requests (via blockchain crawlers, see [1077]) to obtain the asset data.
Claims 4, 13
Furthermore, Sliwka discloses:
the data retrieval requests are transmitted in response to receiving the request to access (search query, see [0180]) asset data of the first digital assets.
Claims 5, 14
Furthermore, Bernardi teaches:
the asset data is obtained via WebSocket interfaces (Websocket connection, see [0314]) associated with one or more of the public blockchain networks or digital asset marketplaces.
Claims 6, 15
Furthermore, Sliwka discloses:
receive, via the client device, a request to connect a digital wallet (digital wallet, see [0201) to the digital asset platform (platform, see [0139]); and
store, in the memory, authentication credentials (public and private key, see [0203]) associated with the digital wallet.
Claims 7, 16
Furthermore, Sliwka discloses:
the digital wallet comprises a Web3 wallet (web3.0 wallet data, see [1093]).
Response to Arguments
101 arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is an improvement to a computer implementing a resource account management system. Additionally, Applicant argues that transferring resources from a resource account in order to acquire digital assets on a platform is not routine or conventional.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant states there is an improvement to a computer implementing a resource account management system without stating what the improvement is. Furthermore, transferring resources from an account is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
103 arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach process a resource transfer from a first account.
Examiner disagrees. Sliwka discloses receiving a selection of a user interface element corresponding to a first one of the digital assets (select a link corresponding to an item, see [0181]) and a request to acquire (elects to purchase an item, see [0182]) the selected first digital asset. Sliwka also discloses processing a resource transfer (transfer ownership of token, see [0182]) from a first resource account (account of buyer, see [0182]) associated with the user account in connection with acquiring the selected first digital asset.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Williams et al. (US 2024/0412207) discloses composable digital assets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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 <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights