DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed November 20, 1025. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims, thereby the objection to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 and U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection.
As per the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant has amended the claims, thereby the claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea of managing transactions between people and electronic recordkeeping. However, the rejection is maintain for reasons indicated below.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Particularly, claim 1 recites determine whether the notification comprises that the first NFT moved from the first digital folder to a third digital folder wherein the third digital folder is related to the first computing system; in response to determining that the notification comprises that the first NFT is not moved. Claims 8 and 15 recite similar language. However, this is unclear. The step is being performed in response to determining that the first NFT was not moved, but the determining step determines that it was moved. Hence, this is indefinite.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 8.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to system comprising a processor. Claims 8-14 are directed to a method. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of transferring digital assets. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to transferring digital assets. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A system comprising:
a memory configured to store:
a blockchain comprising associations of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with digital folders; and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive a first NFT from a first computing system, wherein: the first NFT is associated with a first digital folder; the first digital folder is related to the first computing system;
the first NFT comprising information about digital assets stored in the first digital folder;
receive a second NFT from a second computing system, wherein: the second NFT is associated with a second digital folder;
the second digital folder is related to the second computing system: and user, and wherein
the second NFT represents comprises a first interaction request from the second computing system for an interaction to be performed between the first computing system and the second computing system;
receive a notification comprising information relating to movement of the first NFT:
determine whether the notification comprises that the first NFT moved from the first digital folder to a third digital folder of the first user is received, wherein the third digital folder is related to the first computing system;
in response to determining that the notification comprises that the first NFT is not moved from the first digital folder to the third digital folder, of the first user is not received: search a first plurality of nodes in a blockchain network to identify the first digital folder associated with the first NFT;
search a second plurality of nodes in the blockchain network to identify the second digital folder associated with the second NFT;
establish a communication between the first plurality of nodes and the second plurality of nodes;
perform, based at least in part upon the information about the digital assets stored in the first digital folder, a first interaction corresponding to the first interaction request between the first digital folder and the second digital folder over the communication, the first interaction comprising transferring the digital assets from the first digital folder to the second digital folder.
Independents claim 8 and 15 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the NFT, nodes, blockchain network, computing system, processor, and memory are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of transferring digital assets. Viewed as a whole, the use of NFT, nodes, blockchain network, computing system, processor, and memory as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the NFT, nodes, blockchain network, computing system, processor, and memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transferring digital assets. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transferring digital assets. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as record an association of the first NFT with the first digital folder in the blockchain network; and record an association of the second NFT with the second digital folder in the blockchain network.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697