DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 20 August 2025, claims 1-4, and 15 are amended per applicant’s request. Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 4-8, filed 20 August 2025, with respect to claims 3, 4, 13, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 4-8, filed 20 August 2025, with respect to claims 3 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “INVENTION ELIGIBILITY,” subsection “Claim 1 includes additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more, filed 20 August 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “NONOBVIOUSNESS,” filed 20 August 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
On page 14, line 22, to page 15, line 6, applicant argues that Wu does not teach the “genesis NFT identifier.” However, these arguments against Wu individually are not persuasive, because Pedroso is relied upon to teach these features.
On page 15, line 7-21, applicant argues that Pedroso does not teach the “genesis NFT identifier.”
as described in [0083] of the present application, the "genesis NFT identifier" records some information (such as token ID) of the first minted NFT instead of prior owner as described in Pedroso
However, these arguments are not persuasive, because the features upon which they rely, i.e., that the genesis NFT identifier records a token ID of the first minted NFT, is not recited in the claims. Applicant acknowledges that Pedroso teaches an NFT identifier as the prior owner, which is sufficient to teach the claims as recited. Applicant’s additional arguments that the “kind of tracking [taught by Pedroso] generally cannot be applied to cross-ledger transfer,” is similarly not persuasive, because these arguments are not directed to limitations in the recited claims.
On page 15, line 22, to page 16, line 4, applicant argues that “Pedroso is silent to NFT merging.” However, these arguments are not persuasive, because Pedroso teaches NFT merging in paragraph [0062] by the request to “purchase one or more parts”; see also the instant rejection of claim 4. Pedroso teaches combining two or more split NFTs into a merged NFT, because “if a fractional owner purchased 3 parts, this fractional owner would own $300 of the NFT asset or 30%” (see Pedroso [0062]).
On page 16, lines 5-11, applicant argues that
it is hard for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine those two references . . . merely combining Wu with Pedroso is still impossible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the invention as claimed in claim 1
However, these arguments are not persuasive, because applicant does not address the reasoning to combine the references on record. The assertion that it would be “impossible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the invention as claimed” amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2019/0188697 A1) in view of Pedroso (US 2024/0265362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a computer-implemented method for transferring splittable, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) from a source distributed ledger to a target distributed ledger different from the source distributed ledger, comprising:
locking or burning, by a locking transaction, a source data to be transferred in the source distributed ledger (see Wu [0079], “locking transaction is generated and committed to the source distributed ledger . . . locks the identified [unspent transaction output] UTXO”); and
unlocking or minting, by a completing transaction, a target data corresponding to the source data in the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0081], “completing transaction 408 is generated and committed to the target distributed ledger”).
Wu does not explicitly teach
wherein the source data is a source NFT; and
wherein the source NFT has a source NFT information comprising a splitting rule and a genesis NFT identifier.
However, Pedroso teaches
wherein the source data is a source NFT (see Pedroso [0047], “NFT is created,” where the “ownership blockchain information” is source NFT information); and
wherein the source NFT has a source NFT information comprising a splitting rule and a genesis NFT identifier (see Pedroso [0047]-[0048], the “ownership blockchain information” is source NFT information, where the “fractional ownership” is a splitting rule, and [0050] teaches a genesis NFT identifier by the “reference back to the prior owner”).
Wu teaches in paragraph [0077] to transfer “digitally-represented economic value between co-ledgers,” but Wu does not teach that the economic value is an NFT. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digitally-represented economic value of NTFs, as taught by Pedroso, with the techniques taught by Wu, to generate “customized non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and digital assets that can be stored in distributed ledgers,” because “Since digital assets and NFTs are not in themselves sub-dividable, a need arrises for this invention to provide a means for fractional ownership of a single digital asset and NFT” (see Pedroso [0003] and [0009], respectively).
Wu as modified teaches
wherein the target data is a target NFT (see Wu [0081]-[0082] and Pedroso [0047], where the target data transferred between co-ledges, taught by Wu, is an NFT, as taught by Pedroso); and
wherein the target NFT comprises the source NFT information to enable splitting or merging of the target NFT in the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0081]-[0082] and Pedroso [0047], where the “completing transaction,” as taught by Wu, comprising the source NFT information, taught by Pedroso, and enabling changes in the “fractional ownership,” as taught by Pedroso, enables splitting or merging of the target NFT) .
Regarding claim 2, Wu as modified teaches wherein: before locking or burning the source NFT by the locking transaction further comprising:
upon identifying the source NFT in the source distributed ledger, generating and submitting an initiating transaction for commission to the target distributed ledger, wherein the initiating transaction comprises the target NFT (see Pedroso [0047] and Wu [0078], “existing transaction in the source distributed ledger is found or identified” and “initiating transaction 404 is generated and committed to the target distributed ledger”); and
generating and submitting the locking transaction for commission to the source distributed ledger (see Wu [0079], “locking transaction is generated and committed to the source distributed ledger”); and
before unlocking or minting the target NFT by the completing transaction further comprising (see Pedroso [0047] and Wu [0080]-[0082]):
referencing, by the locking transaction, the initiating transaction in the target distributed ledger to verify the existence of the initiating transaction (see Wu [0080], “locking transaction 406 references the initiating transaction 404 in the target distributed ledger”); and
generating and submitting the completing transaction for commission to the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0081], “completing transaction 408 is generated and committed to the target distributed ledger”).
Regarding claim 3, Wu as modified teaches further comprising splitting the target NFT in the target distributed ledger, wherein the splitting of the target NFT comprises steps of:
after receiving a splitting request complying with the splitting rule, locking or burning the target NFT in the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0081] and Pedroso [0052], where completing the transaction in the target distributed ledger performs locking or burning, as taught by Wu, of the target NFT after receiving a “append, amend, or modification” splitting request as taught by Pedroso); and
based on the genesis NFT identifier and the splitting request, generating a plurality of split NFTs each having a split NFT information comprising at least part of the source NFT information (see Pedroso [0047] and [0050], “splits the fractional ownership” and “blockchain’s block is added a data set that includes the new owner's information with a reference back
to the prior owner”);
wherein the split NFT information of each of the plurality of split NFTs comprises the splitting rule and the genesis NFT identifier (see Pedroso [0047], [0050], and Fig. 1A, elements 140 and 150).
Regarding claim 4, Wu as modified teaches further comprising merging the target NFT in the target distributed ledger, wherein the merging of the target NFT comprises steps of:
receiving a merging request to merge the target NFT with one or more sibling NFTs having a same genesis NFT identifier and a same owner as the target NFT (see Pedroso [0062], the request to “purchase one or more parts” is a merging request, where purchasing “3 parts” merges the target NFT and two siblings having the same genesis NFT and same owner);
locking or burning the target NFT and the one or more sibling NFTs in the target distributed ledger (see Pedroso [0062] and Wu [0081]-[0082], “completing transaction 408 is generated and committed to the target distributed ledger”); and
generating a merged NFT having a merged NFT information comprising at least part of the source NFT information (see Pedroso [0050] and [0062], “NFT asset or 30%”);
wherein the merged NFT information of the merged NFT comprises the splitting rule and the genesis NFT identifier (see Pedroso [0050], [0062], and Fig. 1A, elements 140 and 150).
Regarding claim 5, Wu as modified teaches wherein both the source NFT and the target NFT are referenced to a genesis NFT having the genesis NFT identifier and the splitting rule; and wherein the genesis NFT is the first minted NFT among all NFTs having the genesis NFT identifier (see Wu [0081]-[0082] and Pedroso [0047] and Fig. 1A, where element 120 is a genesis NFT).
Regarding claim 6, Wu as modified teaches wherein the source NFT is the genesis NFT (see Wu [0077] and Pedroso [0047] and Fig. 1A, element 120, where the source “digitally-represented economic value,” taught by Wu, is the genesis NFT taught by Pedroso).
Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified teaches wherein neither the source NFT nor the target NFT are the genesis NFT (see Wu [0077] and Pedroso [0047] and Fig. 1A, elements 130-150, where the source “digitally-represented economic value,” taught by Wu, is an NFT other than the genesis NFT taught by Pedroso).
Regarding claim 8, Wu as modified teaches wherein the genesis NFT identifier is the token ID of the genesis NFT (see Pedroso [0060] and Fig. 1A, element 120).
Regarding claim 9, Wu as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the splitting rule determines a smallest splitting unit of the genesis NFT.
However, Pedroso further teaches wherein the splitting rule determines a smallest splitting unit of the genesis NFT (see Pedroso [0085] and [0109]-[0111], “part system makes 100 parts,” where an individual part is a smallest splitting unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a smallest splitting unit, as taught by Pedroso, in combination with the techniques taught by Wu as modified, because “The owner decides to crowdfund the sell of the NFT so the owner uses the part system option” (see Pedroso [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu as modified teaches wherein the smallest splitting unit is determined by a horizontal segmentation number and a vertical segmentation number (see Pedroso [0085], “divided into parts by horizontal lines 752 and vertical lines 753,” where Fig. 6, elements 752 and 753 implicitly teach a horizontal segmentation number and a vertical segmentation number of 7 and 4, respectively).
Regarding claim 11, Wu as modified teaches wherein the splitting rule further comprises a splitting times which determines a maximum number of times the genesis NFT can be split (see Pedroso [0109], “100 parts” is a maximum number of times the genesis NFT can be split).
Regarding claim 12, Wu as modified teaches wherein the genesis NFT is configured to be split into a plurality of child NFTs based on the splitting rule, and each of the plurality of child NFTs comprises one or more smallest splitting units of the genesis NFT (see Pedroso [0062] and [0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Wu as modified teaches wherein the metadata of the genesis NFT comprises a genesis image, and the metadata of each of the plurality of child NFTs comprises a child image represents a portion of the genesis image (see Pedroso [0085]-[0086], “image that may represent the digital asset”).
Regarding claim 14, Wu as modified teaches wherein the locking transaction locks the source NFT in a smart contract for transferring splittable NFTs from a source distributed ledger to a target distributed ledger (see Pedroso [0047] and Wu [0079] and [0082], the “locking transaction” taught by Wu locks the source NFT, as taught by Pedroso, in a smart contract for transferring, because “the existence of the locking transaction 406 in the source distributed ledger 200S provides a guarantee that the identified UTXO has been, in effect, extinguished in the source distributed ledger”), and
wherein the locked source NFT is unlocked only after a foreign distributed ledger requests to transfer a foreign NFT corresponding to the source NFT from the foreign distributed ledger to the source distributed ledger (see Pedroso [0047] and Wu [0081]-[0082] and [0142], “foreign node(s) returns to the local node that the transaction is valid”).
Regarding claim 15, Wu as modified teaches wherein the foreign distributed ledger is the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0059] and [0144], where the “foreign” distributed ledger is “co-located” with the target distributed ledger).
Regarding claim 16, Wu as modified teaches wherein the foreign distributed ledger is different from the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0059] and [0144], where the “foreign” distributed ledger is not “co-located” with the target distributed ledger).
Regarding claim 17, Wu as modified teaches wherein the target NFT generated in the initiating transaction is only transferrable by the completing transaction when the completing transaction references the locking transaction and when the target NFT information of the target NFT in the initiating transaction matches with the source NFT information of the source NFT identified in the source distributed ledger (see Pedroso [0047] and Wu [0211] and [0080]-[0083], “completing transaction 408 is only valid if it spends (by way of its transaction input) the UTXO of the initiating transaction 404 which is referenced by the locking transaction”).
Regarding claim 18, Wu as modified teaches wherein the completing transaction uses a Merkle tree reference to reference the locking transaction (see Wu [0213] and [0082], “completing transaction 408 must reference the locking transaction 406 . . . by providing the entire locking transaction and the Merkle root”).
Regarding claim 19, Wu as modified teaches wherein the method is performed by a node-stack of the source distributed ledger (see Wu [0214], “method is performed by a node-stack of the source distributed ledger”).
Regarding claim 20, Wu as modified teaches wherein the initiating transaction and the completing transaction are submitted to a node-stack of the target distributed ledger, and the node-stack of the target distributed ledger further submits the initiating and completing transactions to the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0215]).
Regarding claim 21, Wu as modified teaches wherein the method is performed by a node-stack of the target distributed ledger (see Wu [0216], “method is performed by a node-stack of the target distributed ledger”).
Regarding claim 22, Wu as modified teaches wherein the locking transaction is submitted to a node-stack of the source distributed ledger, and the node-stack of the source distributed ledger further submits the locking transaction to the source distributed ledger (see Wu [0217]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kristopher Andersen whose telephone number is (571)270-5743. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM ET, Monday-Friday.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/Kristopher Andersen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159