DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/29/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 5/29/26. Claims 1, 7 and 13 were amended. Claims 1-18 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant argues on pp. 9-11 of the Remarks, prong one, step 2A, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea in certain method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts or mental processes.
The previous rejection only argued the claims recite an abstract idea within certain methods of organizing activity because the claims specifically recite at least “asset transfers”, “a physical asset and the ownership of the physical asset” and “determine that a transaction amount was credited to the first wallet ID from the second wallet ID” limitations which are clearly abstract ideas in certain methods of organizing human activity because they constitute commercial or legal interactions and/or managing interactions between people.
The Applicant argues on pp. 11-13 of the Remarks, prong two, step 2A, that generating a smart contract that automatically transfers ownership of the asset, correlating exchange data with personal data through an authentication form and providing account information and authorization token to smart contract triggers NFT transfer integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they provide a technical solution to improve security in asset transfers using smart contract and blockchain. The Examiner disagrees.
Generating a smart contract that automatically transfers ownership of the asset does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the “smart contract” is generated, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Correlating exchange data with personal data through an authentication form does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) because it is mere collection of authorization information through use of a computer or other machinery.
Providing account information and authorization token to smart contract triggers NFT transfer (Wallet IDs and authorization token) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the “smart contract” automatically triggering a token transfer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the “smart contract” automatically triggers the token transfer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Applicant argues on pp. 13-15 of the Remarks, step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring an asset ownership.
As such, the rejection is maintained and an updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 7), and an article of manufacture (claim 13). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 7 is addressed (from claims 1, 7 and 13). (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of transferring an asset ownership, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A transaction system, comprising memory having instructions stored thereon for managing improved security for blockchain network asset transfers and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the stored instructions to:
generate, via one or more communication networks, using one or more blockchain nodes, after receipt of authorization data from a first client device, and on a first blockchain network comprising the one or more blockchain nodes, a smart contract configured to automatically transfer ownership of a non-fungible token (NFT) upon satisfaction of one or more conditions specified in the smart contract, wherein the non-fungible token comprises a unique representation for a physical asset and the ownership of the physical asset is recorded on the first blockchain network based on an association of the non-fungible token with a first wallet identifier (ID) associated with a seller of the physical asset, wherein the authorization data comprises the first wallet ID and a unique authorization token;
correlating exchange data with personal data included in authentication data obtained via a digital authentication form provided to a second client device via the one or more communication networks to authenticate a buyer of the physical asset, wherein the exchange data is obtained via the one or more communication networks from a cryptocurrency exchange using a second walled ID associated with a buyer of the physical asset and obtained from the second client device:
after querying via the one or more communication networks a second blockchain network to determine that a transaction amount was credited to the first wallet ID from the second wallet ID;
provide, via the one or more communication networks and the one or more blockchain nodes of the first blockchain network, the second wallet ID and the unique authorization token to the smart contract to thereby satisfy the conditions specified in the smart contract and automatically trigger a transfer of the non-fungible token to the second wallet ID and recordation of the non-fungible token transfer on the first blockchain network.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A transaction system, comprising memory having instructions stored thereon for managing improved security for blockchain network [asset transfers] and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the stored instructions”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“generate, via one or more communication networks, using one or more blockchain nodes, [after receipt of authorization data from] a first client device, and on a first blockchain network comprising the one or more blockchain nodes, a smart contract configured to automatically [transfer ownership of a] non-fungible [token …, wherein the ownership of the physical asset] is recorded on the first blockchain network [based on an association of the] non-fungible [token]”. Generating “a smart contract” to transfer ownership of a token (“non-fungible”) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the “smart contract” is generated, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Furthermore, recording ownership of a physical asset in a blockchain based on an NFT associated with the physical asset does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[… personal data included in authentication data] obtained via a digital authentication form provided to a second client device via the one or more communication networks to authenticate [a buyer of the physical asset, wherein the exchange data is obtained] via the one or more communication networks from a cryptocurrency exchange [using a second walled ID associated with a buyer of the physical asset and obtained] from the second client device”. Obtaining personal authentication data through an interface (“authentication form”) provided on a client device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“after querying via the one or more communication networks a second blockchain network [to …]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[provide], via the one or more communication networks and the one or more blockchain nodes of the first blockchain network, [the second wallet ID and the unique authorization token] to the smart contract [to thereby satisfy the conditions specified in] the smart contract and automatically trigger [a transfer of the] non-fungible [token]. Providing information (wallet ID and authorization token) to the “smart contract” and satisfying conditions in the “smart contract” and automatically triggering a token (“non-fungible”) transfer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the “smart contract” automatically triggering a token transfer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the “smart contract” automatically triggers the token transfer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring an asset ownership.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claims 4, 10 and 16 recited, “receive, from a graphical user interface (GUI) provided via the one or more communication networks, a request to obtain rights in the physical asset from the second client device, wherein the request comprises the second wallet ID, the GUI comprises listing data, comprising a plurality of property details for a property and the transaction amount, and a selectable indication associated with the property and selection of the selectable indication by a user of the second client device triggers the request”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“[receive], from a graphical user interface (GUI) provided via the one or more communication networks, [a request …, wherein …, the GUI comprises [… and] selection of the selectable indication […] of the second client device triggers [the request]”. “a graphical user interface (GUI) provided via the one or more communication networks” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because it is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “selection of the selectable indication […] of the second client device triggers [the request]” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how “selectin” triggers the request, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring an asset ownership.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 recited “wherein the ownership transfer corresponds to a purchase or lease of at least a portion of a property” and “automatically generating and recording on the blockchain network transaction documentation including contractual terms associated with the ownership transfer of the property”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“automatically generating and recording on the blockchain network]”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “automatically generating and recording on the blockchain network” information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how information is automatically generated and recorded on the blockchain network, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring an asset ownership..
Claims 6, 12 and 18 recited “wherein the first and second wallet IDs are associated with the second blockchain network, the transaction amount comprises a cryptocurrency corresponding to the second blockchain network, and the first blockchain network is associated with a different cryptocurrency protocol than the second blockchain network.”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“[the first and second wallet IDs] are associated with the second blockchain network”, “a cryptocurrency corresponding to the second blockchain network, and the first blockchain network is associated with a different cryptocurrency protocol than the second blockchain network”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, wallet IDs “are associated with the second blockchain network” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claims fail to recite the technological details of how wallet IDs are associated with the second blockchain network, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of transferring an asset ownership..
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 14-15, the claims recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
References made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, include US 20240378592 A1 (Andresen) disclosing digital crypto treasure hunt using cryptographically secured assets and cryptocurrency wallet seed phrases within electronic art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights