Detailed Action
Claims 1 and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 9-15 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 16-20 are pending and are examined.
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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-02-03 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants representative asserted “[w]hen taken as a whole, the limitations recited in the independent claims go well beyond any abstract idea, and include a technological application well beyond "multiple users accessing an AR/VR environment via networked computers". The independent claims recite a specific practical application, including two parallel metaverses that interact with each other in specific ways and include specific features (e.g., a parallel metaverse that remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional and comprises an interface enabling the first and second users to interact with the parallel metaverse and be represented in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse). The claims, therefore, go well beyond mere recitation of generic computer elements, and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, as described throughout the specification and as explicitly stated in paragraph 6 of the application, the independent claims "improve the security of metaverse transactions." The preambles of the independent claims, at least as amended, also explicitly recite that the methods are directed towards these improvements. As the MPEP states in 2106.04(d)(1), "One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims improve the functioning of metaverse transactions by improving the security of such transactions, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 101.” (Applicants Response, 2026-02-03).
However, the independent claims are still directed to an abstract idea, coordinating user presence/interactions and authorizing/approving transactions between users, and the additional ‘ parallel metaverse/interface/same avatars’ language is recited as a results-oriented functional level that merely places the abstract idea in an AR/VR/metaverse environment rather than integrating it into a practical application. Further, generalized statements (e.g. ‘improving the security of metaverse transactions’) and preamble characterizations do not establish eligibility absent claim language reciting a specific technical solution that produces the asserted security improvement. Indeed, Applicant’s amendments to the previously presented claims have not overcome the current rejections. Accordingly, the current claims are rejected.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Remark 1: Applicant argues “The independent claims recite that the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional. The Examiner alleged that Shuster shows this feature in paragraphs 69 and 71. However, applicant submits that the claim language requires that the parallel metaverse remain functional at any time that the existing metaverse is functional. And while Shuster may discuss parallel metaverses that may have some concurrent or simultaneous operation, Shuster does not show parallel metaverses with a parallel metaverse that remains functional at any time that the existing metaverse is functional.” Applicant further argues “The independent claims, as amended, recite that the users are represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse. Support for the amendment can be found at least in FIGs 3 and 4 showing the avatars in both metaverses simultaneously. Applicant submits that while Shuster may show avatars "travelling" or "passing" between parallel spaces, Shuster does not show users being represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse. The independent claims, as amended, recite that the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing metaverse and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel metaverse. Support for the amendment can be found in at least paragraph 138 of the specification ("Sending avatar 313 and/or receiving avatar 315 may have authority to request and approve transaction request 311 in metaverse 310"). Applicant submits that the cited references do not show parallel metaverses where the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing metaverse and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel metaverse. The independent claims, as amended, recite importing, to the parallel metaverse, an encrypted non-fungible token (NFT) from the existing metaverse. Support for the amendment can be found in at least paragraph 139 of the specification ("NFTs 316 may be imported into parallel metaverse 320"). Applicant submits that the cited references do not show the methods of the independent claims where the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing metaverse and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel metaverse.” (Applicants Response, 2026-02-03).
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the cited references (e.g. Basu, Eller, Shuster, and Nagla) still teach the currently amended independent claims, as shown at least in paragraphs 5, 41, 47, 49, 71, 80, and 83 of Shuster, and as further outlined at least in paragraphs 30, 33, and 36 of this action. (id.) Indeed, the limitation ‘remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional’ reasonably reads on concurrent operation/availability of parallel instances while the existing environment is operating, which Shuster teaches via active parallel dimensions/instances connected through interfaces/common areas; likewise, Shuster teaches multi-instance presence and synchronous animation of an object including an ‘avatar’, which supports ‘simultaneous’ representation of the same avatar identity across the existing and parallel environments, even if some embodiments describe ‘passing’ between spaces. Further, importing an encrypted NFT from an existing metaverse is obvious in view of known encrypted NFT/secure transfer techniques together with Shuster’s cross-interface transfer/duplication of objects. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
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 1-2, 4-8, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-2, and 4-8
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of secure digital transactions. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method of transferring an asset from a first user of an existing metaverse to a second user of the existing metaverse, the existing metaverse comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality, the method comprising:
detecting a suspicious characteristic;
when the suspicious characteristic is detected, suspending the transfer and creating a parallel metaverse, wherein: the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional
the parallel metaverse comprises an interface enabling the first and second users to interact with the parallel metaverse; and be represented in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse
at least one of the first and second users has authority to request the transfer in the parallel metaverse; and
neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel metaverse;
receiving an encrypted non-fungible token (NFT) from the existing metaverse in connection with the first and second users or the transfer;
decrypting the encrypted NFT;
receiving a determination of whether to approve the transfer, wherein a party other than the first and second users determines whether to approve the transfer; and
when the transfer is approved, transferring the asset from the first user to the second user.
Step 2A Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Here, the additional elements of existing metaverse, parallel metaverse, computer network, interface, and NFT, individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The existing metaverse may be a generic and conventional existing metaverse (See Spec. 0010). The parallel metaverse may be a generic and conventional parallel metaverse (See Spec. 0009-0013). The computer network may be a generic and conventional computer network (See Spec. 0031 and 0076). The interface may be a generic and conventional interface (See Spec. 0015).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed previously, the description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea (See Spec. 0009-0013, 0015, 0031, and 0076). As such, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, and 4-8 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the suspicious characteristic is a characteristic of the first user or the second user.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the existing metaverse and parallel metaverse are connected to one another via a network layer.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting an additional NFT from a past transaction wherein the first or second user participated.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting, from one or more other users, a confidence award for the first or second user, wherein the transfer is approved by the party only when the confidence award is obtained.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting credit history of the first or second user.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the party is a financial institution.
Claim 16-20
Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 16 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of secure digital transactions. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method of improving metaverse security by preventing a fraudulent transfer of an asset from a first user to a second user in an existing metaverse with increased security, the existing metaverse comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality, the method comprising:
detecting an unusual transactional pattern;
when the unusual transactional pattern is detected, suspending the transfer and creating a parallel metaverse, wherein: the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional; the parallel metaverse comprises an interface enabling the first and second users to interact with the parallel metaverse; and be represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse
at least one of the first and second users has authority to request the transfer in the parallel metaverse; and
the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing metaverse and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel metaverse;
importing, to the parallel metaverse, an encrypted non-fungible token (NFT) from the existing metaverse in connection with the first and second users or the transfer, wherein the NFT is a cryptographic token that represents the asset;
decrypting the encrypted NFT; and
receiving a determination whether to approve the transfer, wherein a party other than the first and second users decides whether to approve the transfer, and wherein the determination is at least partially based on additional verification of the first or second user.
Step 2A Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Here, the additional elements of existing metaverse, parallel metaverse, computer network, interface, and NFT, individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The existing metaverse may be a generic and conventional existing metaverse (See Spec. 0010). The parallel metaverse may be a generic and conventional parallel metaverse (See Spec. 0009-0013). The computer network may be a generic and conventional computer network (See Spec. 0031 and 0076). The interface may be a generic and conventional interface (See Spec. 0015).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed previously, the description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea (See Spec. 0009-0013, 0015, 0031, and 0076). As such, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 17-20 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting an additional NFT from a past transaction wherein the first or second user participated.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting, from one or more other users, a confidence award for the first or second user.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
further comprising requesting a credit history of the first or second user.
Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the credit history is requested from a financial institution.
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 1-2, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu et al. (US20220173893A1) (hereinafter “Basu”) in view of Eller et al. (US20200167791A1) (hereinafter “Eller”) in further view of Shuster et al. (US20100070859A1) (hereinafter “Shuster”)
As per Claim 1, Basu teaches:
A method of transferring an asset from a first user of an existing . . . to a second user of the existing . . .the method comprising: detecting . . .; when . . . is detected, suspending the transfer and creating a parallel . . ., wherein: (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
the parallel . . . comprises an interface enabling the first and second users to interact with the parallel . . .; at least one of the first and second users has authority to request the transfer in the parallel . . .; the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing . . . and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel . . .; (“According to one embodiment of the invention, there is a method that includes a processor and a local storage device accessible by the processor for processing NFTs on a blockchain platform. A request for processing an NFT is received on the blockchain platform, by a requestor. The NFT is accessed by chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) from at least two blobbers B (B1, B2, . . . , Bn). The NFT is reconstructed from the chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) to process the request.” (Para. 0006); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071); “FIG. 1 shows an overview of the process of sharing an encrypted NFT's content 100. The encrypted NFT may be a shadow NFT. In some embodiments, a request for processing an NFT is received on the blockchain platform, by a requestor. The NFT is accessed by chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) from at least two blobbers B (B1, B2, . . . , Bn). The NFT is reconstructed from the chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) to process the request. The request may be one viewing, editing, purchasing, funding, and transferring ownership of the NFT. Various means may be used to specify the NFT, for example, but not limited to, a content identification, an NFT ID, a path identification, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and the like.” (Para. 0077)
importing, to the parallel . . ., an encrypted non-fungible token (NFT) from the existing . . . in connection with the first and second users or the transfer; (“Once the interaction between client and blobber has concluded, the blobber writes an additional transaction to the blockchain, which redeems the markers for tokens, that is, the platform cryptocurrency, and commits the blobber to a Merkle root matching the data stored. The leaves of the Merkle tree must match markers sent from the client, preventing either the client or the blobber from defrauding each other.” (Para. 0068)
decrypting the encrypted NFTs; (“9) [decrypt 109]: Upon receiving the encrypted data, a portion of the NFT, the viewer 155 decrypts the data using the viewer's private key, 10) [auth ticket, read marker 110]: The viewer 155 sends the authorization ticket and the read marker to blobber2 165. 11) [re-encrypt 111]: After verifying the authorization ticket, the blobber2 165 re-encrypts the NFT for the viewer 155. 12) [encrypted data 112] The blobber 2 165 sends the encrypted data to the viewer 155. 13) [decrypt 113]: Upon receiving the NFT, the viewer 155 decrypts the NFT using the viewer's private key. 14) [Reconstructdata114]: Once all slices of the data have been received, the viewer 110 reconstructs the original data, that is, the NFT.” (Para. 0087-0095)
receiving a determination of whether to approve the transfer, wherein a party other than the first and second users determines whether to approve the transfer; and (“A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
when the transfer is approved, transferring the asset from the first user to the second user. (“However, if encryption is used, additional steps are required. Before the purchaser buys the ERC-721 token, they must download the shadow NFT content. Failure to do so could mean that the data is lost. After the transfer is complete, the purchaser must encrypt the data with their own public key and upload to the blobbers. While this process could fail and leave the Shadow NFT in the hands of the seller, the purchaser is the critical actor for all required steps. The seller has no opportunity to disrupt this process (provided that the buyer has the shadow NFT data stored locally already). FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram outlining the process for the sale or transferring of an NFT 200.” (Para. 0098-0099); “Prior to this phase, it is assumed that the seller has approved the NFT_SC to manage the ERC-721 token on the other blockchain. Then the following steps occur: 1) [Buy ERC-721 token 201]: The purchaser 250 buys the ERC-721 token according to the NFT_SC 260. 2) [Cryptocurrency 202]: The NFT_SC 260 transfers the native cryptocurrency on the other blockchain platform to the seller 255. 3) [ERC-721 token 203]: The NFT_SC 260 transfers the ERC-721 token to the purchaser 250. 4) [Transfer event 204]: The NFT_SC 260 notifies the escrow agent 265 that a transfer event has occurred. 5) [Ownership change, public key 205]: The NFT_SC 260 notifies the blockchain 275 of the ownership change.” (Para. 0100-0106)
Basu does not disclose:
• “the suspicious characteristic” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Eller in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “the suspicious characteristic”. (See “Walletscore measures a wallet's propensity to engage in criminal or suspicious activity. Naturally, transacting with a criminal is tantamount either to funding crime or laundering its proceeds, so it is in our collective interest to identify—and then monitor or quarantine—any wallet with criminal association.” (Para. 0009); “FIG. 3 illustrates identification of a risk score . . . Risk Score Philosophy. . .There are several nuances to defining an interpretable and useful risk score. In particular, we want to satisfy these constraints: Permit the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet to affect the risk score of another wallet—having no intrinsic risk score—to which it connected by multiple hops. Arrange so that the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet does not diminish over time and hops, yet diminishes immediately upon seizure by law enforcement. Accommodate varying views of what constitutes criminal versus suspicious activity, as in the case of gambling. Accommodate varying degrees of evidence of criminal activity, from direct to circumstantial to hearsay. Evidence comes from numerous channels include direct reports from the entity themselves. Each channel is given a confidence score. Self-reporting or reports by law enforcement are treated as trusted sources. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score is proportional to criminal intent, as in the case of a scam victim who unwittingly sends funds to a scammer, or someone who receives an iota of heist proceeds through an airdrop—neither of which should suffer an increase in risk score. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score reflects the proportion of funds exchanged with wallets carrying some amount of intrinsic risk, perhaps as well as the volume thereof.” (Para. 0044-0052)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Eller to include suspicious characteristic detection in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “metaverse with increased security” and “the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Shuster in the analogous art of redundant parallel environments, teaches: “metaverse with increased security” and “the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional”. (See “a “parallel dimension” means a duplicate or recognizable counterpart of a bounded, computer-modeled space that is accessible via a common environment. Parallel dimensions may be created, for example, by copying element of an existing space or template for a space in the computer memory. Each of the plurality of parallel dimensions may comprise an independent model of a physical, three-dimensional space having corresponding features such that the parallel dimensions are recognizable as counterparts to each other. It is not necessary that each dimension be an exact duplicate of other dimensions. Because the dimensions operate independently, some divergence may occur after the dimensions become active.” (Para. 0068); “The parallel dimensions may have the characteristic of operating concurrently in a system memory. While certain activities inside each parallel dimension may be independent, for example, the activity of avatars, nonetheless the parallel dimensions may retain some relationships to one another.” (Para. 0069); “Environment 311 may further comprise one or more common spaces 322 that provide for simultaneous interaction with multiple instances of parallel dimensions 320. For example, a common space may comprise a stage to a club or theater. The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d.” (Para. 0047); “multiple parallel dimensions may operate simultaneously.” (Para. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include parallel environment functionality. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data access for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “and be represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Shuster in the analogous art of multi-user networked platforms, teaches: “and be represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse”. (See “The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d. An avatar or other object in the common space 322 may be able to pass into each of the parallel spaces, being replicated in the process.” (Para. 0047); “The parallel dimensions may have the characteristic of operating concurrently in a system memory. While certain activities inside each parallel dimension may be independent, for example, the activity of avatars, nonetheless the parallel dimensions may retain some relationships to one another. For example, the parallel dimensions may share common spaces or portals to common spaces. For further example, communication between avatars in different dimensions may be permitted. Avatars may also be permitted to travel between dimensions.” (Para. 0069); “a common space in a computer memory, configured in relation to multiple parallel dimensions so that a modeled object originating from the common space is capable of passing into at least one of the parallel dimensions, or vice-versa. . . selection may be based on avatar populations of each parallel space.” (Para. 0080-0083); “Environment 311 may further comprise one or more common spaces 322 that provide for simultaneous interaction with multiple instances of parallel dimensions 320. For example, a common space may comprise a stage to a club or theater. The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d.” (Para. 0047); “multiple parallel dimensions may operate simultaneously.” (Para. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include representation in the parallel universe by the same avatars that represent the users in the existing instance, via Basu’s persistent asset/identity backing across nodes and Shuster’s concurrent parallel dimensions. Therefore, the incentives of providing identity continuity and a seamless cross-instance experience for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “the existing . . . comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Shuster in the analogous art of multi-user networked platforms, teaches: “the existing . . . comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality”. (See “Multiple players may participate in the environment through a computer network, such as a local area network or a wide area network.” (Para. 0005); “System 300 comprises a portal or interface 308 connected to receive data, such as through a wide area network 306, from a plurality of users 302, 304 (two of many shown).” (Para. 0041); “Output data 404, including for example virtual-reality data configured to cause remote clients to output an animated display of a corresponding one of the parallel dimensions and avatars therein, may be output to a portal module for distribution to remote clients.” (Para. 0049))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include a computer network synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via VR, with Shuster supplying the network-based VR concurrency and Basu supplying resilient, replicated data access. Therefore, the incentives of providing real-time muti-user access with high uptime and data continuity provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 2, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein . . . is a characteristic of the first user or the second user. (See “1) [NFT ID, pub key 101]: The viewer 155 sends the owner 150 a request for an NFT, specifying both the desired NFT and the viewer's public key.” (Para. 0078); “The sales input 430 is sent to the NFT_SC 420. The provided sales input 430 specifies description, field, and comment: a) The purchaser information, PurchID, the identification of the purchaser on the blockchain platform of the buyer.” (Para. 0139).
Basu does not disclose:
• “the suspicious characteristic” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Eller in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “the suspicious characteristic”. (See “Walletscore measures a wallet's propensity to engage in criminal or suspicious activity. Naturally, transacting with a criminal is tantamount either to funding crime or laundering its proceeds, so it is in our collective interest to identify—and then monitor or quarantine—any wallet with criminal association.” (Para. 0009); “FIG. 3 illustrates identification of a risk score . . . Risk Score Philosophy. . .There are several nuances to defining an interpretable and useful risk score. In particular, we want to satisfy these constraints: Permit the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet to affect the risk score of another wallet—having no intrinsic risk score—to which it connected by multiple hops. Arrange so that the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet does not diminish over time and hops, yet diminishes immediately upon seizure by law enforcement. Accommodate varying views of what constitutes criminal versus suspicious activity, as in the case of gambling. Accommodate varying degrees of evidence of criminal activity, from direct to circumstantial to hearsay. Evidence comes from numerous channels include direct reports from the entity themselves. Each channel is given a confidence score. Self-reporting or reports by law enforcement are treated as trusted sources. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score is proportional to criminal intent, as in the case of a scam victim who unwittingly sends funds to a scammer, or someone who receives an iota of heist proceeds through an airdrop—neither of which should suffer an increase in risk score. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score reflects the proportion of funds exchanged with wallets carrying some amount of intrinsic risk, perhaps as well as the volume thereof.” (Para. 0044-0052)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Eller to include suspicious characteristic detection in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 16, Basu teaches:
A method of improving metaverse security by preventing a fraudulent transfer of an asset from a first user to a second user in an existing . . ., the existing . . . comprising a computer network configured to be . . ., the method comprising: detecting an . . .when the . . . is detected, suspending the transfer and creating a parallel . . ., wherein: (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
the parallel . . . comprises an interface enabling the first and second users to interact with the parallel metaverse and . . .; at least one of the first and second users has authority to request the transfer in the parallel . . .; and the first and/or second users have authority to approve the transfer in the existing . . . and neither of the first and second users has authority to approve the transfer in the parallel . . .; (“According to one embodiment of the invention, there is a method that includes a processor and a local storage device accessible by the processor for processing NFTs on a blockchain platform. A request for processing an NFT is received on the blockchain platform, by a requestor. The NFT is accessed by chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) from at least two blobbers B (B1, B2, . . . , Bn). The NFT is reconstructed from the chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) to process the request.” (Para. 0006); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071); “FIG. 1 shows an overview of the process of sharing an encrypted NFT's content 100. The encrypted NFT may be a shadow NFT. In some embodiments, a request for processing an NFT is received on the blockchain platform, by a requestor. The NFT is accessed by chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) from at least two blobbers B (B1, B2, . . . , Bn). The NFT is reconstructed from the chunks C (C1, C2, . . . , Cn) to process the request. The request may be one viewing, editing, purchasing, funding, and transferring ownership of the NFT. Various means may be used to specify the NFT, for example, but not limited to, a content identification, an NFT ID, a path identification, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and the like.” (Para. 0077)
importing, to the parallel . . ., an encrypted non-fungible token (NFT) from the existing . . . in connection with the first and second users or the transfer; wherein the NFT is a cryptographic token that represents the asset; (“Once the interaction between client and blobber has concluded, the blobber writes an additional transaction to the blockchain, which redeems the markers for tokens, that is, the platform cryptocurrency, and commits the blobber to a Merkle root matching the data stored. The leaves of the Merkle tree must match markers sent from the client, preventing either the client or the blobber from defrauding each other.” (Para. 0068)
decrypting the encrypted NFTs; (“9) [decrypt 109]: Upon receiving the encrypted data, a portion of the NFT, the viewer 155 decrypts the data using the viewer's private key, 10) [auth ticket, read marker 110]: The viewer 155 sends the authorization ticket and the read marker to blobber2 165. 11) [re-encrypt 111]: After verifying the authorization ticket, the blobber2 165 re-encrypts the NFT for the viewer 155. 12) [encrypted data 112] The blobber 2 165 sends the encrypted data to the viewer 155. 13) [decrypt 113]: Upon receiving the NFT, the viewer 155 decrypts the NFT using the viewer's private key. 14) [Reconstructdata114]: Once all slices of the data have been received, the viewer 110 reconstructs the original data, that is, the NFT.” (Para. 0087-0095)
receiving a determination of whether to approve the transfer, wherein a party other than the first and second users determines whether to approve the transfer; and (“A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
and wherein the determination is at least partially based on additional verification of the first or second user. (“However, if encryption is used, additional steps are required. Before the purchaser buys the ERC-721 token, they must download the shadow NFT content. Failure to do so could mean that the data is lost. After the transfer is complete, the purchaser must encrypt the data with their own public key and upload to the blobbers. While this process could fail and leave the Shadow NFT in the hands of the seller, the purchaser is the critical actor for all required steps. The seller has no opportunity to disrupt this process (provided that the buyer has the shadow NFT data stored locally already). FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram outlining the process for the sale or transferring of an NFT 200.” (Para. 0098-0099); “Prior to this phase, it is assumed that the seller has approved the NFT_SC to manage the ERC-721 token on the other blockchain. Then the following steps occur: 1) [Buy ERC-721 token 201]: The purchaser 250 buys the ERC-721 token according to the NFT_SC 260. 2) [Cryptocurrency 202]: The NFT_SC 260 transfers the native cryptocurrency on the other blockchain platform to the seller 255. 3) [ERC-721 token 203]: The NFT_SC 260 transfers the ERC-721 token to the purchaser 250. 4) [Transfer event 204]: The NFT_SC 260 notifies the escrow agent 265 that a transfer event has occurred. 5) [Ownership change, public key 205]: The NFT_SC 260 notifies the blockchain 275 of the ownership change.” (Para. 0100-0106)
Basu does not disclose:
• “unusual transactional pattern” (claim 16).
However, as per Claim 1, Eller in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “unusual transactional pattern”. (See “Walletscore measures a wallet's propensity to engage in criminal or suspicious activity. Naturally, transacting with a criminal is tantamount either to funding crime or laundering its proceeds, so it is in our collective interest to identify—and then monitor or quarantine—any wallet with criminal association.” (Para. 0009); “FIG. 3 illustrates identification of a risk score . . . Risk Score Philosophy. . .There are several nuances to defining an interpretable and useful risk score. In particular, we want to satisfy these constraints: Permit the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet to affect the risk score of another wallet—having no intrinsic risk score—to which it connected by multiple hops. Arrange so that the intrinsic risk score of a given wallet does not diminish over time and hops, yet diminishes immediately upon seizure by law enforcement. Accommodate varying views of what constitutes criminal versus suspicious activity, as in the case of gambling. Accommodate varying degrees of evidence of criminal activity, from direct to circumstantial to hearsay. Evidence comes from numerous channels include direct reports from the entity themselves. Each channel is given a confidence score. Self-reporting or reports by law enforcement are treated as trusted sources. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score is proportional to criminal intent, as in the case of a scam victim who unwittingly sends funds to a scammer, or someone who receives an iota of heist proceeds through an airdrop—neither of which should suffer an increase in risk score. Arrange so that a wallet's risk score reflects the proportion of funds exchanged with wallets carrying some amount of intrinsic risk, perhaps as well as the volume thereof.” (Para. 0044-0052)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Eller to include suspicious characteristic detection in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “improving metaverse security” and “the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional” (claim 16).
However, as per Claim 16, Shuster in the analogous art of redundant parallel environments, teaches: “improving metaverse security” and “the parallel metaverse remains functional whenever the existing metaverse is functional” (See “a “parallel dimension” means a duplicate or recognizable counterpart of a bounded, computer-modeled space that is accessible via a common environment. Parallel dimensions may be created, for example, by copying element of an existing space or template for a space in the computer memory. Each of the plurality of parallel dimensions may comprise an independent model of a physical, three-dimensional space having corresponding features such that the parallel dimensions are recognizable as counterparts to each other. It is not necessary that each dimension be an exact duplicate of other dimensions. Because the dimensions operate independently, some divergence may occur after the dimensions become active.” (Para. 0068); “The parallel dimensions may have the characteristic of operating concurrently in a system memory. While certain activities inside each parallel dimension may be independent, for example, the activity of avatars, nonetheless the parallel dimensions may retain some relationships to one another.” (Para. 0069); “Environment 311 may further comprise one or more common spaces 322 that provide for simultaneous interaction with multiple instances of parallel dimensions 320. For example, a common space may comprise a stage to a club or theater. The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d.” (Para. 0047); “multiple parallel dimensions may operate simultaneously.” (Para. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include parallel environment functionality. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data access for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “and be represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse.” (claim 16).
However, as per Claim 16, Shuster in the analogous art of multi-user networked platforms, teaches: “and be represented simultaneously in the parallel metaverse by the same avatars representing the first and second users in the existing metaverse”. (See “The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d. An avatar or other object in the common space 322 may be able to pass into each of the parallel spaces, being replicated in the process.” (Para. 0047); “The parallel dimensions may have the characteristic of operating concurrently in a system memory. While certain activities inside each parallel dimension may be independent, for example, the activity of avatars, nonetheless the parallel dimensions may retain some relationships to one another. For example, the parallel dimensions may share common spaces or portals to common spaces. For further example, communication between avatars in different dimensions may be permitted. Avatars may also be permitted to travel between dimensions.” (Para. 0069); “a common space in a computer memory, configured in relation to multiple parallel dimensions so that a modeled object originating from the common space is capable of passing into at least one of the parallel dimensions, or vice-versa. . . selection may be based on avatar populations of each parallel space.” (Para. 0080-0083); “Environment 311 may further comprise one or more common spaces 322 that provide for simultaneous interaction with multiple instances of parallel dimensions 320. For example, a common space may comprise a stage to a club or theater. The interior of the common space may be visible and/or audible in each of the dimensions 321 a-d.” (Para. 0047); “multiple parallel dimensions may operate simultaneously.” (Para. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include representation in the parallel universe by the same avatars that represent the users in the existing instance, via Basu’s persistent asset/identity backing across nodes and Shuster’s concurrent parallel dimensions. Therefore, the incentives of providing identity continuity and a seamless cross-instance experience for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
The combination of Basu and Eller does not disclose:
• “the existing . . . comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality” (claim 16).
However, as per Claim 16, Shuster in the analogous art of multi-user networked platforms, teaches: “the existing . . . comprising a computer network configured to be synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via virtual reality or augmented reality”. (See “Multiple players may participate in the environment through a computer network, such as a local area network or a wide area network.” (Para. 0005); “System 300 comprises a portal or interface 308 connected to receive data, such as through a wide area network 306, from a plurality of users 302, 304 (two of many shown).” (Para. 0041); “Output data 404, including for example virtual-reality data configured to cause remote clients to output an animated display of a corresponding one of the parallel dimensions and avatars therein, may be output to a portal module for distribution to remote clients.” (Para. 0049))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Shuster to include a computer network synchronously accessible to a plurality of users via VR, with Shuster supplying the network-based VR concurrency and Basu supplying resilient, replicated data access. Therefore, the incentives of providing real-time muti-user access with high uptime and data continuity provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claims 4-8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu in view of Eller in view of Shuster in further view of Nagla et al. (US20180075527A1) (hereinafter “Nagla”)
As per Claim 4, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein . . . (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
The combination of Basu, Eller, and Shuster does not disclose:
• “the existing metaverse and parallel metaverse are connected to one another via a network layer” (claim 4).
However, as per Claim 4, Nagla in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “the existing metaverse and parallel metaverse are connected to one another via a network layer”. (See “The identity unit 326 can generate the credit history record using the first set of identifiers. The credit history record includes a credit score, the set of blocks and the additional block. Each block of the credit history records has an identifier of the first set of identifiers. The identity unit 326 can interact with the interface unit 322 to transmit the credit history record to an interface, enterprise system or external system. Each credit record in the credit history record is indexed by an identifier of the set of identifiers for the individual. Each block of the credit history record is linked by an identifier in a common set of identifiers. For example, a set of identifiers can be a social insurance number, credit card number, name, email address, and passport number.” (Para. 0091); “The interface unit 322 configures an integration middleware layer to record a new block on the distributed ledger, the new block having the smart contract, the identifier and the selected creditor.” (Para. 0113)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Nagla to include connections between digital environments. Therefore, the incentives of providing faster access to data for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 5 and 17, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1, . . .. (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
The combination of Basu, Eller, and Shuster does not disclose:
• “further comprising requesting an additional NFT from a past transaction wherein the first or second user participated” (claim 5).
However, as per Claim 5, Nagla in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “further comprising requesting an additional NFT from a past transaction wherein the first or second user participated”. (See “The identity unit 326 can generate the credit history record using the first set of identifiers. The credit history record includes a credit score, the set of blocks and the additional block. Each block of the credit history records has an identifier of the first set of identifiers. The identity unit 326 can interact with the interface unit 322 to transmit the credit history record to an interface, enterprise system or external system. Each credit record in the credit history record is indexed by an identifier of the set of identifiers for the individual. Each block of the credit history record is linked by an identifier in a common set of identifiers. For example, a set of identifiers can be a social insurance number, credit card number, name, email address, and passport number..” (Para. 0091); “The identity unit 326 can receive notification of a credit event for the individual. The notification having an identifier of the first set of identifiers. The identity unit 326 can record an additional block on the distributed ledger. The additional block can have the identifier of the first set of identifiers and credit event attributes. The identity unit 326 can interact with the machine learning unit 320 in order to create the block as there may be rules specific to different types of credit events.” (Para. 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Nagla to include additional security prompts in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 6 and 18, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1, . . .. (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
The combination of Basu, Eller, and Shuster does not disclose:
• “further comprising requesting, from one or more other users, a confidence award for the first or second user, wherein the transfer is approved by the party only when the confidence award is obtained” (claim 6).
However, as per Claim 6, Nagla in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “further comprising requesting, from one or more other users, a confidence award for the first or second user, wherein the transfer is approved by the party only when the confidence award is obtained”. (See “The interface unit 322 can provide an alert and notification unit configured to generate a credit alert for the individual indicating the credit event and transmit the credit alert to the individual using the first set of identifiers. The credit alert provides a way to keep people apprised of their actions and its impact on their credit score. The credit alert can indicate that certain things can impact the credit score and also to what extent. For example: if an individual applies for three credit cards (credit event), new telecommunications connection (credit event) and a personal loan (credit event) in a period of time then the credit score could go down by 30 to 40 points. The credit alert can indicate this data as new blocks record the credit events. The credit alert can also indicate to the individual that if they do certain things (e.g. credit events) then there is a net impact to their credit score. For example after applying for two financial cards (e.g. credit events) and one personal loan (e.g. credit event) then the credit score went from 740 to 720. Accordingly, the credit alert can indicate the credit event and the impact on the credit score (e.g. point impact, net impact). The credit alert can also indicate what credit events can increase credit scores. When a credit event is detected and there is a credit score change then the individual gets an indication. Third parties can also register to receive credit alerts for a particular individual. In some embodiments, the third party requires authorization by the individual before receiving credit alerts relating to the individual..” (Para. 0110); “The identity unit 326 can configure the credit history application to interact with the scoring unit 328 to determine an impact of the credit event on the credit history record of the individual. The interface unit 322 can transmit a credit alert indicating the impact to the interface application 306. The scoring unit 328 computes a credit score based on the credit history record of the individual and generate a credit score notification indicating the credit score and the credit event.” (Para. 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Nagla to include confidence rankings in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 7 and 19, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1,. . .. (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
The combination of Basu, Eller, and Shuster does not disclose:
• “further comprising requesting credit history of the first or second user” (claim 7).
However, as per Claim 7, Nagla in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “further comprising requesting credit history of the first or second user”. (See “The identity unit 326 can generate the credit history record using the first set of identifiers. The credit history record includes a credit score, the set of blocks and the additional block. Each block of the credit history records has an identifier of the first set of identifiers. The identity unit 326 can interact with the interface unit 322 to transmit the credit history record to an interface, enterprise system or external system. Each credit record in the credit history record is indexed by an identifier of the set of identifiers for the individual. Each block of the credit history record is linked by an identifier in a common set of identifiers. For example, a set of identifiers can be a social insurance number, credit card number, name, email address, and passport number.” (Para. 0091); “The identity unit 326 can receive notification of a credit event for the individual. The notification having an identifier of the first set of identifiers. The identity unit 326 can record an additional block on the distributed ledger. The additional block can have the identifier of the first set of identifiers and credit event attributes. The identity unit 326 can interact with the machine learning unit 320 in order to create the block as there may be rules specific to different types of credit events.” (Para. 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Nagla to include credit history requests in transaction authorization. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 8 and 20, Basu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the party is a financial institution. (“The artist is the creator and initial owner of an NFT. When the owner of the NFT would like to transfer the NFT between blockchains, the owner is expected to have accounts on both blockchains. In an embodiment, the accounts may be managed through a curator application (app) to provide a seamless experience coordinating the actions for the two blockchains. Blobbers follow the current blockchain's storage protocol to store the actual data for an NFT. Viewers pay the owner for access to the content of an NFT; they are likewise expected to have valid accounts in both blockchain platforms. In an embodiment, the curator is a single entity, such as an art house selling NFTs. Alternatively, a group of curators could collectively manage the shadow NFTs if desired.” (Para. 0072); “A design is disclosed for storing data associated with an ERC-721 tokens on a blockchain, hereafter called the current blockchain platform. In the disclosed process, a shadow NFT is a data allocation managed on the current blockchain that may be tied to an ERC-721 token. The NFT Smart Contract (NFT_SC) may be an Ethereum smart contract that is approved to sell an ERC-721 token for its owner. Instead of Ethereum, a different blockchain different from the current blockchain may have its own smart contract for selling ERC-721 tokens. In an embodiment, NFT_SC is a smart contract that is approved to sell ERC-721 token for its owner on a different platform from the current blockchain. The current blockchain may have its own NFT Smart Contract (ZNFT_SC), responsible for managing shadow NFTs. A curator monitors the NFT_SC for transactions, for example, but not limited to transaction that transfer ownership of the NFT and manages the corresponding shadow NFT on the current blockchain, acting through calls to the ZNFT_SC.” (Para. 0071)
The combination of Basu, Eller, and Shuster does not disclose:
• “wherein the party is a financial institution” (claim 8).
However, as per Claim 8, Nagla in the analogous art of financial transaction security, teaches: “wherein the party is a financial institution”. (See “The interface unit 322 can provide an integration middleware layer configured to: determine that the transaction terms are satisfied; trigger notification of the credit event based on the determination; and record another block on the distributed ledger for the loan, the other block comprising the identifier of the set of identifiers and creditor identification. The integration middleware layer can receive payment notification for the loan; trigger notification of the credit event based on the payment notification.” (Para. 0105); “The credit record has an initial block for that borrower or debtor indicating digital identity information. The initial block can also include references to additional blocks of digital identity data to expand the set of identifiers for the digital identity. The initial block may be created and entered on the blockchain by a financial institution, credit bureau and so on. The owner is granted ownership rights over the blocks for the credit record, and all subsequent blocks referencing a borrower using one or more identifiers for the digital identity.” (Para. 0119); “In some embodiments, a node of the plurality of nodes is one or more computing devices associated with a financial or lending institution.” (Para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Basu with the technique of Nagla to include financial institutions in the transaction authorization process. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data security for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20160342994 (Davis), discussing “. . . a process 400 for the authorization of a blockchain transaction in a traditional payment network using the system 100. In step 402, the processing server 110 of the payment network 108 may generate a transaction message for a blockchain transaction. As discussed above, the transaction message may be formatted based on one or more standards and include a plurality of data elements, including at least a first data element configured to store a transaction amount and a second data element reserved for private use. The first data element may store a zero amount and the second data element may store a blockchain network identifier, a transaction amount of blockchain currency, and an address identifier associated with a payee 104. In step 404, the transmitting unit 206 of the processing server 110 may transmit the transaction message to the issuer 112 via the payment network 108. The receiving unit 302 of the issuer 112 may receive the transaction message using associated protocols, and, in step 406, the processing unit 304 of the issuer 112 may check for authorization of the blockchain transaction. Authorization may be based on, for example, sufficient funding of the payer 102, such as based on a stored currency amount, based on a blockchain currency amount associated with a transaction identifier associated with the payer 102, etc., or other criteria that will be apparent to persons having skill in the relevant art. The processing unit 304 may generate an authorization response based on the determination, such as an authorization response that indicates approval or denial of the transaction.” (Para. 0073-0075).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697