DETAILED ACTION
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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 January 2026 has been entered.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11 and 13-15 are currently amended; claims 3-5, 8-9, 12 and 16-17 are original.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 6-7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, the claims recite the phrase “the NFT” should read “an NFT” in claim 1 line 5.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “an internationalized resource identifier (IRI,)” in line 13 should read “an internationalized resource identifier (IRI),”, where the comma should be placed after the closing parentheses.
Claim 1 further recites the phrases “at least one label” in lines 6 and 14 and “the at least one token-type label” in lines 19-20. It is unclear whether the phrases are indicating the same label or different.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the phrase “the blockchain” in line 14 should read “a blockchain”; the phrase “the NFT wallet” in line 16 should read “the NFT wallet application”; the phrase “the metadata labels” in line 21 should read “metadata labels”; and the phrase “an internationalized resource identifier (IRI,)” in line 23 should read “an internationalized resource identifier (IRI),”, where the comma should be placed after the closing parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the claims recite the phrase “the NFT wallet” in claim 1 line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The claim 1 further recites the phrase “the blockchain” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claims recite the phrase “the email”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the phrase “the processor” in line 16 and "the email label" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of the base claim(s) from which they depend.
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.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, claim 1 is one of the statutory categories. The claim recites “determining at least one label stored in the NFT JSON file; checking, by a processor, a registry storing mappings of token-type labels to display properties that are not stored on the blockchain and are dynamically updatable without altering the NFT JSON file; wherein the NFT JSON file includes an internationalized resource identifier (IRI,) identifying a storage folder containing the at least one label identifying complete legal documents in at least one file format selected from PDF, DOC, XLS, and TXT” which is merely a concept can be performed in the human mind. Human mind through observation can perform the determining, checking, and identifying steps. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process and are directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional element: “retrieving an NFT JSON file from a unified resource identifier (URI) contained in the NFT; the method further comprises retrieving the complete legal documents from the storage folder via the IRI and presenting the complete legal documents in the NFT wallet; and instructing a user device to display information associated with the at least one token-type label in the at least one file format selected from PDF, DOC, XLS, and TXT”, which indicates using the internet to gather data and display information . As such, this limitation amounts to mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., retrieving an NFT JSON file from a unified resource identifier (URI)) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(h).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, the independent claims recite the elements retrieving, determining, checking and displaying steps, which indicates data gathering, analyzing and displaying. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 10 is also directed to the abstract idea for the same reason as the claim 1 above. The claim 10 further recites the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional retrieving and transmitting steps are extra-solution activity, and it is not more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the independent claim 10 is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11-17, claims further recite the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Thus, the claims further include data related to mental processes are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments, pages 6-9, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WIKLOF et al. (US 2023/0403171 A1) teaches management of payload data represented by electronic tokens.
Meyers et al. (US 2023/0249078 A1) teaches facilitating play of games via customized display of game NFTS.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SOLAIMAN BHUYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on 571-272-4085. 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 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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad S Bhuyan/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168