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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2-5 be found allowable, claims 11-14, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The claims are not properly arranged. A claim that depends from a dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim that does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV).
Dependent claim 6 depends from dependent claim 2 but is separated therefrom by claims 3-5. Claims 3-5 do not depend from claim 2. Dependent claim 10 depends from dependent claim 4 but is separated therefrom by claims 5-9, which do not depend from claim 4, and dependent claim 17 depends from dependent claim 15 but is separated therefrom by claim 16, which does not depend from claim 15.
In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed since the order of claims may change during prosecution, but the original claims should conform to these requirements. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). This objection was made because often errors in claim order are inadvertent and result in unintended dependent claim relationships. The claims will be renumbered if this application is allowed.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-20 are directed to processes. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“setting a time frame for NFT creation… after receiving the time frame from a user; creating… one or more storylines about the one or more NFTs within the time frame; associating… the storylines with the one or more NFTs; receiving … approval information from the user; displaying… the one or more NFTs for public purchase, wherein the one or more NFTs includes one or more plots; receiving… purchase information from a buyer; receiving… bidding information from one or more fans; determining… a purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; retrieving… at least one coded manuscript; changing …the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; and storing… the at least coded manuscript after changing the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a communication device, a processing device, and a storage device. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., a communication device receives a time frame and approval from a user, receives purchase information from a buyer, and bidding information from one or more fans; a processing device is used to create one or more storylines, associate them with one or more NFTs, display the NFTs, determine an NFT that received the most fans, and change a manuscript in accord with the NFT that received the most fans; and the storage device retrieves and stores the manuscript. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas with an “apply it” generic device. The substantive process is furthermore recited only by descriptions of abstract results of steps without any particular technological action required by any particular device to obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are generic devices identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular technical acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The claims fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas such as the receiving of additional communications (data). A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claims 11-14 would then be objected to as being substantial duplicates of claims 2-5. Claims 11-14 would avoid this objection if amended to depend from independent claim 9, or if they are rewritten so as not to be substantial duplicates of claims 2-5. See 37 CFR 1.75.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating subject matter allowable over the prior art:
Independent claim 1 recites a method of creating and changing one or more nonfungible tokens (NFTs), the method comprising:
“setting a time frame for NFT creation, using a communication device, after receiving the time frame from a user; creating, using a processing device, one or more story lines about the one or more NFTs within the time frame; associating, using a processing device, the storylines with the one or more NFTs; receiving, using a communication device, approval information from the user; displaying, using a processing device, the one or more NFTs for public purchase, wherein the one or more NFTs includes one or more plots; receiving, using a communication device, purchase information from a buyer; receiving, using a communication device, bidding information from one or more fans; determining, using a processing device, a purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; retrieving, using a storage device, at least one coded manuscript; changing, using a processing device, the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; and storing, using a storage device, the at least coded manuscript after changing the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans.”
The most closely applicable prior art is Goldston et al. (Patent No. US 11,983,253 B2), KIM DAE SUNG (Pub. No. KR 20230174478 A), and JUNTILLA (Pub. No. US 2023/0115684 A1).
Goldston teaches calculating and distributing royalty percentages in portions of digital media associated with minting of an NFT. The NFT and associated smart contract can be configured to define the rights transferred with the NFT which can include whole or fractional ownership, exclusive or non-exclusive rights ownership, or license rights. Polling is used to determine fractional owners' approval or disapproval of a transaction. Goldston briefly describes use of the media content of an NFT in creating new media content and minting a new NFT but does not does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious at least the limitations
“setting a time frame for NFT creation, using a communication device, after receiving the time frame from a user; … receiving, using a communication device, bidding information from one or more fans; determining, using a processing device, a purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; … changing, using a processing device, the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans; and storing, using a storage device, the at least coded manuscript after changing the at least coded manuscript according to the purchased NFT that received the highest number of fans,”
in combination with the other claim limitations as recited above.
KIM DAE SUNG teaches artists use of an NFT voting platform wherein an NFT is used to prove ownership and authenticity while fans can access the digital content for free. A proposal, for example a sponsorship or donation to an artist, that receives the majority of votes of stake holders (fans), for example by actions such as ‘likes,’ ‘follows,’ etc., is implemented. KIM DAE SUNG does not however alone or in any reasonable combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
JUNTILLA teaches using NFTs to authenticate and validate ownership of physical products, including the implementation of an NFT voting scheme wherein each owner of the NFT counts for a vote or portion of a vote in decision making for the community related to the NFT. The method includes implementing an NFT update comprising evaluation of the NFT, or a condition, maintenance state, historical importance, and individual nostalgia value of the item. JUNTILLA however does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
Other relevant prior art includes Madhusudhan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0071093 A1), 남기원 (Pat. No. KR 102863149 B1 – translation of inventor name not currently available), Kim Ji Hong (Pub. No. KR 20240102228 A), Chang Kwang Young (KR 20230073865 A), and Billings et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0095313 A1).
Madhusudhan teaches transactions in digital assets using NFTs and smart contracts that allows modifications to the document that represent counteroffers or a negotiation process from other parties and that provides also for continuing royalties pursuant to further future sales. It does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
남기원 teaches management of creative works including new secondary creations of users in an original creation, and includes the performance of an auction process for divided secondary creative spaces wherein the bidding amount and the successful bid amount are auctioned differently depending on the location of the secondary creative space in which the primary creative work is divided into grid frames. A work management server determines the storage location of the secondary creative work through an operation that determines the location using the user's bid and an original creative work can be divided into areas so that it can be used as a secondary creative space and traded to multiple secondary creators through an auction. This reference does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
Kim Ji Hong teaches an NFT sales platform linked with the sale of a real product with an embodied art work (crafts, 2D and 3D digital art, computer game main skins, icons, etc.) printed or installed on the product, and an NFT linked with the product to prove ownership and copyright of digital content, calculating the number of buyers and minting an NFT (Non-Fungible Token) equal to the number of buyers, and transmitting the minted NFT to each buyer. It does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
Chang Kwang Young teaches establishing and conveying ownership of jewelry design by NFT, including options such as material, color, price, and quantity. It does not disclose ownership of modifications or bidding/polling fans for popularity of modifications and modification of the design based thereon. It therefore does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
Billings teaches a user curated collection of audio visual artwork or a playlist with playback or streaming control by user wherein the audio visual artwork is stored or accessed via a non-fungible token (NFT) blockchain. It does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations noted above in combination as also recited above in combination with the other claim limitations.
The most closely applicable Non-Patent Literature article is Elzweig, “When Does a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Become a Security?,” cited as item U in the accompanying form PTO-892. Elzweig teaches the legal definition of securities and the various uses of NFTs up to and past the point where they become securities. It describes token holders voting on investment decisions of the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization digital token holders). It does not alone or in combination with any other known references, disclose, anticipate or fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as discussed above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having thus been introduced, addressed, and distinguished, it is examiner’s position that the above record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 13, 2025