DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 20, and 22 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 5-8, 14, and 16-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 02/27/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because claims 1, 12, and 22 do not properly indicate the text of added and deleted matter. Particularly, in claim 1, “with the computing device” has been removed from the third paragraph without being marked, “by the computing device” and “obtained from the physical object” have been removed from the fourth paragraph without being marked. In claim 12, “object” appears to have been removed from the second paragraph without being marked (and subsequently added back into the paragraph), “receive, by a computing device, a user input selecting” was removed and “select” was added to the third paragraph without being marked, “with the computing device” has been removed from the fourth paragraph without being marked, “by the computing device” and “obtained from the physical object” have been removed from the fifth paragraph without being marked. In claim 22, “receive, by a computing device, a user input selecting” was removed and “select” was added to the fourth paragraph without being marked, “with the computing device” has been removed from the fifth paragraph without being marked, “by the computing device” and “obtained from the physical object” have been removed from the sixth paragraph without being marked. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on 02/27/2026 appears to be bona fide, and the amendments are readily apparent, Examiner will proceed with examination on the merits. Examiner respectfully requests that any future amendments comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) above. A Notice of Non-Compliance may be sent for future claim amendments that do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the specification and drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the drawing and specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-24, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-22 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-22 have been maintained.
After reciting the amended claim 1 and referencing the locations in Applicant’s disclosure that support the amendments on pages 8-9 (more particular discussion of the support or lack thereof for the amendments can be found in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section below), Applicant argues on page 10 that the pending claims fall within the four statutory categories and are patent eligible. Regarding the pending claims falling within the statutory categories, Examiner agrees as indicated in the previous Final Rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument that the claims are patent-eligible.
Next, on pages 10-13, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One. Applicant particularly argues that the pending claims recite a “specific technical improvement” on pages 11 and 12. Examiner notes that Step 2A Prong One is for determining whether a claim recites a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04 II.A.1.). The issue of whether the claims recite a technical improvement is not addressed until Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d) I.). Accordingly, Examiner will address the alleged technical improvement with the Prong Two arguments. However, Examiner notes here that several features argued by Applicant on pages 11 and 12 (the “NFC identifier or an RFID identifier remain[ing] inaccessible for modification”, “a distributed ledger (blockchain)”, “a unique cryptographic signature generated by the device”, and “a documented technical problem: the vulnerability of physical-to-digital bindings to cloning, spoofing, or replay attacks”) are not reflected in the claimed invention. Indeed, the inaccessibility of an NFC or RFID identifier to modification, the unique cryptographic signature, and the identification of cloning, spoofing, and replay attacks are also not found in Applicant’s specification.
Regarding the recitation of judicial exceptions in the claims, Examiner generally agrees with Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 that the amendments to the independent claims of scanning an NFC/RFID tag and the receipt of a cryptographic token cause the independent claims to no longer recite a Mental Process. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below no longer states that the claims recite a Mental Process.
Examiner notes that the case law of Thales and McRO cited on pages 11 and 12 are not analogous to the claimed invention. Thales claimed a particular configuration of inertial sensors, and McRO claimed a method for automatic lip synching in animation. While not all software is automatically an abstract idea, these cases are not analogous to the pairing of a digital and physical asset in the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments against mathematical processes on page 12 are moot because the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections did not state the claims recited mathematical concepts. Similar to the discussion in the Response to Arguments in the Final Rejection, amended claim 1 recites the receipt of a user input selecting a record associated with a digital asset. This record selection covers, but is not limited to, the selection of an object description of an ordered item as Applicant discusses regarding Fig. 7 and throughout [0089]-[0095] (see [0091] “Orders may be presented in a list per drop…orders represent e-commerce orders placed through a web store or represent individual items in a product that were bulk ordered” and [0093] “The user may select the object description…By selecting an object description, the user is also selecting a digital asset”) to be prepared for order fulfilment by requesting a link to an identifier of a physical asset. This process of preparing ordered items for order fulfilment at least falls into at least the sub-grouping of “Commercial or Legal Interactions”. This request to link a record and a unique identifier of a physical object is part of the process of a vendor (the party performing the claimed method) fulfilling a business relationship/agreement with a customer (an order for an object linked to a digital asset). Accordingly, amended claim 1 recites an abstract idea that falls within at least one of the enumerated sub-groupings of CMOHA at Step 2A Prong 1
Finally, regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13, MPEP 2106.04 states “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow… While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility”. Furthermore, the performance of “API level validation against a distributed ledger” is not recited in the claims. The independent claims end by reciting that a request is sent with an indication to associate or not associate the digital asset with the physical object. While the claims say the verification is enabled by the claimed process, the claims themselves stop short of reciting even whether the request to associate the digital asset and physical object is acted upon, and do not recite any active validation being performed. Therefore, the claims do not recite the argued API level validation. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Prong One are not persuasive.
On pages 13-18, Applicant next argues that the claims are eligible at Prong Two. Applicant first argues on pages 13-14 that the scanning and sending of the request message cannot be considered a Mental Process. As discussed above, Examiner is no longer considering the independent claims as reciting a Mental Process. However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s assertion on page 13 that the message is structured is not reflected in the claim language. The claimed message comprises the unique identifier and data associated with the digital asset along with an indication of whether the two pieces of information should be associated. Nowhere in the claims or the specification is a particular structure of the message recited. The message containing this information and being “machine-interpretable” does not amount to more than using computers as tools to send a message as there are no technical details of the message being claimed. The linking of two heterogeneous data types argued by Applicant appears to be an asserted technical problem but is not mentioned in Applicant’s disclosure. Furthermore, as stated previously, the claimed process stops at the transmitting of the request to link the data, and does not explicitly recite whether the request to link the data is followed through on.
Applicant next argues on page 14 that the claims improve the functioning of computer systems by solving the technical problems of “reliably associating a physical object with a digital asset in a manner that prevents counterfeiting, misassociation, and data-integrity failures”. While Applicant states that the specification discusses these problems, it appears that only counterfeiting is discussed in the specification in [0009]. Specifically, [0009] recites “By associating a digital asset with a physical object, a user may easily validate the authenticity of the physical object. Counterfeit goods may easily be identified and dismissed as they will not include an NFC chip linked with a correct digital asset”. The considered level of anti-counterfeiting in the specification results from the association of the digital asset with the object identifier. This method of counterfeit prevention is an improvement to the business practice of providing provenance of an object. Therefore, instead of the improvement being provided by the additional elements of the claims, the improvement is provided by the data association of the digital asset and the object identifier. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements” and MPEP 2106.05(a) II. “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”, the improvement to prevent counterfeiting recited in the specification is not an improvement to computers/technology.
The alleged problem of misassociation is not addressed in the claims or Applicant’s specification. The data integrity failures from manual entry and fraud argued by Applicant also does not appear to be a problem considered in Applicant’s specification. Even if the data integrity problem and alleged improvement from scanning were to have been explicitly considered, MPEP 2106.05(a) I. states that Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910-11, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1505-06 (Fed. Cir. 2017) process of more reliably identifying a sender of a mail object by scanning a barcode is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. Similarly, the scanning of an NFC or RFID tag would also not be sufficient to show an improvement to computer functionality. The alleged improvement in reliability and accuracy argued by Applicant as technical improvements were also not found to be improvements to computer functionality in MPEP 2106.05(a) I. and Secured Mail (“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality…Affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed”.
Regarding the particular steps argued at the bottom of page 14, in contrast with the “specific hardware capability” argued by Applicant, Applicant’s specification [0109] states “Scanning may be done utilizing any technology, such as, NFC, quick response (“QR”), radio frequency identification (“RFID), and optical scans”. The independent claims themselves also consider alternative scanning technologies to receive the unique identifier for the object. There also does not appear to be a particular data interpretation step, as the two pieces of data are received and then transmitting in a request message. As discussed above, the request message itself is not structured in a particular way in the claims, and the distinct classes of data are not considered a technical in Applicant’s specification. As far as a “a structure, machine-implemented operation”, amended claim 1 states that the method is “computer-implemented” by a ”computing device” without further recitation of particular components or technical details.
Regarding the preemption argument Page 15, Examiner points to the above discussion on preemption. The MPEP states that while preemption is an underlying concern, preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility.
Regarding Applicant’s citation of Enfish, Examiner notes that Enfish dealt with a self-referential database with the improvement to the database itself being a technical improvement. However, a self-referential database of Enfish is not analogous to the receiving and linking of digital assets and unique object identifiers.
Applicant then cites various passages of the 2019 Revised eligibility guidance across pages 15-16 before arguing on the rest of page 16 that the claimed invention satisfies the guidance. While Examiner agrees that all additional elements should be given weight whether or not they are conventional and that technical improvements can be made to other technology or technical fields, evaluating the additional elements as a whole does not arrive at the conclusion that a technical improvement is made for the reasons discussed above and in the rejection below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on the top of page 17 that the “order fulfillment” characterization is contradicted by the specification, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to [0003]-[0004] “Crypto assets help align incentives amongst creators and their fans as creators can sell digital assets directly to fans. For example, a professional athlete may release a digital asset collection highlighting the greatest moments of their career. Another way for creators to interact with fans is to sell physical objects associated with their image. For example, the same athlete may release a sneaker line with a sportswear brand. Fans of the athlete may purchase both the digital asset and a pair of sneakers to display their fandom” and [0069]-[0070] “When an order is created, such as with a purchase on an e-commerce website or a redemption of a digital asset for the physical counterpart, a unique URL may be generated and used for encoding to a blank NFC chip. This URL is the link between the physical and digital assets. The digital asset is linked to the order and the URL, which is encoded to the physical item” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the process of linking digital and physical assets that is being claimed is part of this “order fulfillment” process of a user placing an order for physical item that is paired with a digital asset. While counterfeiting is mentioned in [0009] as discussed above, the linking of a digital asset to a physical object, the part of the order fulfillment process discussed and claimed, is the method by which the counterfeiting is addressed in the spec. The correct digital asset with the correct physical object proves authenticity.
Across pages 17-18, Applicant points to a variety of case law that Applicant asserts are analogous to the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited cases are directed to non-analogous subject matter (improved cameras in Contour, improved laboratory techniques in XY, inertial sensor configurations in Thales, animation lip synching in McRO, user interfaces in Core Wireless, and virus scanning in Finjan). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(a) states that eligibility determination is no longer based on case comparison (“This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea”). Regarding Applicant’s particular argument on page 18 stating that it matter by which machinery the result of the claims is accomplished, Examiner once again points the recitation of the method being “computer implemented”, the selection of the digital asset being received by “a computing device”, and Applicant’s specification stating that any suitable scanning technology could be used to read the object identifier. Also, as discussed previously, Applicant’s alleged technical problems are either not resolved with a technical solution (check for the correct pairing of digital asset with object identifier to prevent counterfeiting) or are not recited in the specification (mis-association and data-integrity).
Applicant’s arguments at Prong Two are thus unpersuasive. The pending claims are directed to a judicial exception at Prong Two.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 18-24 that the pending claims are eligible at Step 2B by reciting significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant first argues on pages 19-20 that the amended claims have been reframed to enable verification of authenticity of a physical object, allegedly aligning the claims with the technical problem being solved for. However, as discussed above, the claimed process ends at a request that the digital asset should or should not be associated with each other. The claims stop short of reciting a verification being performed, and furthermore do not even explicitly require that the digital asset and physical object actually wind up being associated with each other. The claimed invention is silent regarding whether the request is acted upon. Accordingly, while the claimed invention performs steps that may later enable verification, in the context of the claimed invention the “enabling of verification” is the intended use of the claimed invention, not a recited step of the invention. This intended purpose of the claims therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Next, Applicant argues that the Office provides no factual evidence supporting the conclusion that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 II. states “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: • Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; • Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): • Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant…” Examiner notes that the additional elements of the claimed invention below, taken as a whole, amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computing components and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use. These issues are addressed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), respectively, and therefore the conclusions regarding these considerations are carried over to Step 2B. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added), and MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (emphasis added). While Examiner agrees that additional elements that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two need evidence to classify them as well understood, routine, and conventional, Examiner notes that none of the additional elements in the claimed invention were classified as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that no evidence was provided to support the Office’s Step 2B conclusion is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues across pages 19-20 that the cited prior art does not provide evidence that steps of the claimed invention are well-understood, routine, and conventional. As discussed above, no additional evidence is required per the MPEP for the additional element categories indicated in the claimed invention. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments regarding what the cited art teaches in relation to eligibility are moot, as MPEP 2106.05 I. states “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument about the selection of a record describing the physical object and associated with a cryptographic token being a “dual-linked data structure” and not a generic record selection step, Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification [0093] states “the user of computer device 701 may select an object description from the list. The user may select the object description using a graphical display provided by computer device 701. By selecting an object description, the user is also selecting a digital asset”. The claims do not recite any particular data structure, and Applicant’s specification does not indicate any particular “dual linked” structure that goes beyond a user selecting a record off a list on a GUI.
Regarding the scanning of a NFC or RFID tag on the physical object, see the above discussion on the scanning of information from a physical object not providing a technical improvement per the MPEP. Instead, the scanning of the physical object to acquire the unique identifier is generally linking the exception to the field of NFC/RFID. Generally linking the exception to a field of use does not amount to significantly more per the discussion of the MPEP Step 2B process above.
Applicant next argues on page 20 that the request message that includes an indication to associate or not to associate the digital asset with the physical object is a “new and critical limitation” that is not a generic “association request”. While Examiner agrees that the limitation is new, Examiner also notes that, as will be discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section below, Applicant’s specification does not provide support for the request message an indication not to associate the digital asset and physical object. Regardless, even if the claim had support tin the description, the request, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, covers a message comprising data of the digital asset, the unique identifier of the physical object, and a binary yes/no regarding whether the two pieces of information should be linked. Again, the claimed invention does not explicitly recite the actual linking of the digital asset and the physical object. Therefore, the claims do not reflect the “authenticity-verification process: it prevents unauthorized or duplicate associations; it ensures that the system can reject mismatched or counterfeit objects; and it enables the computing device to enforce authenticity rules at the time of association”. The claims do not reference duplicative associations, rejecting mismatched/counterfeit objects, nor authenticity rules to enforce. Applicant’s specification only mentions preventing duplicate association in [0095] “the user may press Mark Done which flags the digital asset as associated, preventing duplicate associations”. Marking something as “claimed” to prevent it from being claimed again is not a technical improvement, and is also not a request message to not associate a digital asset with a physical object. Mismatch prevention between digital assets and the enforcement of authenticity rules do not appear to be contemplated in the specification. Accordingly, the request message is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasoning discussed above regarding Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer on page 20 are not persuasive.
Applicant again argues on pages 20-21 that the Office provided no evidence that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional. For the reasoning discussed above regarding the Step 2B process outlined in the MPEP, these arguments are not persuasive. Examiner again notes that the MPEP states that eligibility and novelty/obviousness are distinct inquires.
Next Applicant appears to circle back to Step 2A Prong One and argue that the claimed invention does not recite a judicial exception of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For the reasoning discussed above regarding Step 2A Prong One above, Examiner has removed the Mental Process classification but has maintained the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity classification.
Applicant again argues about the alleged technical problem of cloning, spoofing, and replay attacks. As discussed above, Applicant’s disclosure does not contemplate these problems. Applicant’s disclosure and claims also do not recite cryptographic signatures, and the claims do not recite “API-level blockchain validation”. Applicant’s arguments that the association of between digital asset and physical object is secure across pages 21-22 is not persuasive at least because the claims do not explicitly recite an association being made, just a request to associate. Furthermore, the scanning of RFID/NFC to retrieve an identifier that is then requested to be associated with a digital asset does not reflect an improvement to technology. Indeed, the claims state whether an association should be made, but do not reflect technical details regarding how such an association is to be made. Applicant’s specification [0069] does not even require a 1:1 relationship between digital asset and physical object.
On the remainder of page 22, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a Mental Process. As stated previously, the claims are no longer classified as reciting a mental process in the rejections below. On page 23, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to three pieces of case law. Examiner respectfully finds all three arguments unpersuasive. Regarding Ancora, the restriction of software operation within a license is not analogous to the claimed invention because the limitations were applied to the software program itself. In the claimed invention, no restrictions or limitations related to the functioning of either the digital asset or physical object are being imposed. Regarding Finjan, the improvement over traditional virus scanning is not analogous to the claimed invention because the claimed invention is not improving NFC/RFID communication, improving cryptographic tokens, nor improving the “computing device” operating the claimed method. The claimed invention is instead using these additional elements as tools to associate an identifier of a physical object with a data asset, and generally linking the process to the field of NFC/RFID communications and cryptographic tokens. Finally, regarding DDR, the generation of a composite webpage was necessarily rooted in computer technology. The claimed invention pairing physical objects with digital assets is not. Indeed, Applicant’s specification considers certificates of authenticity as counterparts to physical objects, which are not rooted in computer technology.
Finally, Applicant assets across pages 23-24 that the additional elements of the claims are not generic computer instructions nor field of use limitations per the MPEP. However, for the reasoning discussed above, the additional elements fall into exactly these categories per the MPEP. Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 24-52, filed 08/27/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-22 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or moot. While the cancellation of claims 3, 5-8, 14, and 16-19 renders the rejections of those claims moot, claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 1, after quoting claim 1 and the specification citations supporting the amendments (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section below for new matter of the request message indicating to not associate a digital asset and physical object), Applicant argues on pages 25-28 that amended claim 1 is non-obvious over the combination of Davis and Younger.
Applicant argues on page 25 that Davis and Younger do not recite “a cryptographic token as the digital asset; a same-device NFC scan and/or RFID scan of the physical object; and a request message that enables verification of authenticity, where the request message must include an indication to associate or not associate the digital asset with the physical object”. Regarding the cryptographic token, Applicant’s claim 9 recites “the cryptographic token is a non-fungible token (NFT)”. Applicant’s specification further recites that the cryptographic token can be an NFT. Applicant’s Remarks explicitly state that Davis “links apparel to NFTs” on page 25, and Davis does recite linking an NFT to apparel (see at least Abstract). Accordingly, based on Applicant’s disclosure, Remarks, and Davis’s invention, Davis teaches a digital asset being a cryptographic token, specifically an NFT.
Regarding the same-device NFC/RFID scan, Applicant argues that Younger does not the same computing device scanning an object to obtain an object identifier. Particularly, Applicant argues that the NFC scan of Younger is for a different purpose than “authenticity verification” because the scan takes place as part of attaching user content to a physical item. Applicant argues that this scan is “functionally different” because it not part of a “cryptographically meaningful authenticity-verification scan” and thus that Younger is not analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant alludes to in the argument, Younger is being used to teach that the same device performing the linking of a physical and digital asset is performing the scan of the object. Regarding analogousness, MPEP 2141.01(a) I. states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.” In the case of Younger and claimed invention, Younger is at least in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Particularly, both the claimed invention and Younger are in the field of endeavor of linking digital assets with physical objects. Both disclose the selection and linking of digital assets with NFC tags on physical objects. Younger is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. The managing of permission stated in Younger is reasonably pertinent to the authentication-verification problem alleged by Applicant, as restricting access to the NFC tag data aids in the validation of the tag and ensures authenticity of the object. Furthermore, the scanning of the physical object’s NFC tag is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention’s problem because, just like in the claimed invention, the scanning of the physical object NFC tag tells the system which physical object is being associated with a digital asset. This information needs to be obtained in the “authenticity-verification” process of the claimed invention, and Younger provides a way to obtain such information. The purposes and problems of the reference need not be an exact match of the claimed invention’s in order to be analogous art, contrary to Applicant’s arguments. Accordingly, Younger teaches the same-device NFC/RFID scan.
Regarding the request message now including an “indication to associate or not to associate” the digital asset and the physical object, Examiner agrees that Davis and Younger do not teach the request message comprising an indication to not associate the digital asset and physical object. Specifically, Davis and Younger teach the request message comprising a notification to associate the digital asset and physical object, and do not teach the possibility that the request message could comprise an indication not to associate them. Tashiro (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0039171, hereafter known as Tashiro) has been used to teach this newly added limitation. However, Examiner notes that, for the reasons discussed in greater detail in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section below, the request message now including an “indication to associate or not to associate” the digital asset and the physical object does not have proper written description support in the specification.
Applicant next appears to argue on page 27 that the Davis and Younger would not be combinable because they solve different problems and that there is no motivation identified for the combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Younger reference is used to incorporate the same-device NFC scanning into the system of Davis. Davis teaches that the Fig. 7 device is capable of performing the scanning functionality in Col. 10 lines 48-53. Davis is silent regarding whether the scanning takes place during the association process of Fig. 3, but the physical object identifier is obtained as part of the process of Fig. 3 used to read on the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, seeing that tag scanning functionality is already present in Davis to receive physical object identifiers, would have recognized that incorporating the Younger feature of scanning the NFC tag to obtain a physical object identifier as part of the process of linking digital and physical assets would have had predictable results and accomplished the obtaining of the physical object identifier as required in Davis Fig. 3.
Per MPEP 2141 III. “Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:… C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. In the case of the claimed invention, the known technique is the Younger scanning of the NFC tag to identify the physical object to pair with a digital asset and the method being improved is the Davis method of linking physical objects and digital assets in which the identifier of the physical object needs to be obtained.
Regarding the arguments that Davis and Younger do not address authenticity/forgery verification, Davis explicitly teaches that the NFT linked with the physical object is used to authenticate ownership of the good (see Col. 5 lines 8-10 “a NFT that authenticates ownership of a NFT artifact, and/or a physical good (e.g., apparel) that presents and/or is linked to a NFT artifact” and Col. 2 lines 32-33 “the embedded tag may be used to verify the authenticity of the associated good”). Therefore, while the claims do not recite the actual verification of authenticity, Davis nonetheless teaches that the linking of NFTs and physical objects can be used to verify the authenticity of goods.
As discussed above, Davis also teaches a cryptographic token, Younger teaches the same-device scanning a RFID. For similar reasons discussed above regarding the analogousness of the Younger reference and the claimed invention, the Younger and Davis references are also analogous art.
Applicant then argues on pages 27-28 that the cited art allegedly teaches away from claimed invention. Applicant argues that both references are designed around “non-security-critical workflows” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify either system to add cryptographic authenticity verification because “it would undermine the goals of both systems”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly, as discussed above, Davis explicitly teach the use of an NFT linking to a physical object to verify the authenticity of the object in Col. 5 lines 8-10 and Col. 2 lines 32-38. This NFT-based authentication teaches the “cryptographic authenticity verification” as is claimed. No further modification is needed to teach the current claims. Younger further teaches attaching digital assets to physical objects, and includes “private” privacy control settings in [0058] to prevent other users from altering the content associated with the physical object’s tag. Accordingly, the modification of Davis with Younger does not frustrate or run counter to the purposes of the applications. There is nothing is the references that suggests that the incorporation of Younger NFC scanning into Davis’s system that explicitly states that the system is capable of scanning an NFC chip of a physical object. While “teaching away” is an argument against obviousness, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited art teaches away.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Davis and Younger are unpersuasive or moot. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Next Applicant argues on pages 28-29 that claim 2, requiring a pre-encoded URL as the unique identifier, is not taught by Davis and Younger. Applicant argues that the URLs encoded in Davis are not used as the unique identifier. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Davis explicitly teaches in Col. 2 line 66 thru Col. 3 line 7 “Tag 104 may be embedded into the fabric of clothing item 100 and/or directly under or adjacent to artifact 102. Tag 104 may include an NFC, RFID, integrated circuit, and/or other machine-readable chip or circuit that stores and/or is encoded with a value. The value may include a Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”), network identifier, and/or other data that cannot be changed once written to tag 104. Specifically, tag 104 may store a value that links to the NFT for artifact 102” (emphasis added). Davis Col. 4 lines 38-52 further teach that the encoded URL is unique and immutable once written. Accordingly, Davis teaches that the URL encoded into the tag is a unique identifier of the physical object that is linked to the digital asset. As shown in step 302 of Davis, the tags are already encoded with the URLs before the linking with an NFT is made.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Younger alone on page 29 are moot because Davis teaches the limitation. Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Davis and Younger are not persuasive because the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the scanning of Younger to retrieve a unique ID of the physical object tag would have had predictable results with the URL of Davis. Indeed, Younger even explicitly recites that the NFC tag also includes a web server location “The web server location from the NFC tag (i.e., the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) is also passed to the app 722” in [0051]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the further requirement that the identifier be a URL in claim 2 would not have frustrated the incorporation of the scanning of Younger. Applicant’s argument that the combination is hindsight reasoning is therefore not persuasive. As discussed above, Davis explicitly teaches the linking of physical and digital assets, including via a URL on a physical object tag, as ensuring authentic apparel from a merchant. Applicant’s arguments about the different purposes of the art is therefore not persuasive. Claim 2 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Next Applicant argues on pages 30-31 that claim 4, requiring a selection of a record from a list of records on a graphical display, is not taught by Davis and Younger. Applicant argues that Davis never presents a list of digital records on a graphical display. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Davis explicitly teaches in Col. 5 lines 17-21 "The NFT minting node may present different NFT artifacts or NFT collections that are available for minting and/or purchase via a website or application. In some embodiments, the user may select which NFT artifact the user wishes to purchase" for displaying different selectable NFTs on a website or app for a user to select from and Col. 5 lines 5-8 " a user may access a NFT minting node of NFT-linked-goods system 200 and/or a website or interface provided by the NFT minting node in order to select and/or purchase an NFT artifact". Therefore Davis explicitly teaches displaying a list of potential NFTs (records of the digital asset) to a user in the graphical display of a website for the user to make a selection as to which NFT is to be linked with the physical object tag. While Davis considers embodiments in which the NFT is automatically selected, Davis teaches embodiments in which the user selects the NFT to be linked. Davis also teaches the NFT storing a description of the physical object (see Col. 2 lines 60-64 for the NFT storing an edition or serial number and Col. 3 lines 8-16 for the NFT itself being printed on the object). Accordingly, Davis teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Younger alone are moot because Davis teaches the claim 4 limitations. Applicant’s arguments against modifying the combination to incorporate a list-based interface are moot because the primary reference of Davis teaches the interface without modification. The list interface of Davis is used to select the digital asset just as recited in the claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 4 are not persuasive, and the claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 31-33 that claim 9, requiring the cryptographic token to be a NFT, is not taught by Davis and Younger. Applicant admits on page 32 that Davis teaches NFTs. Applicant’s specification explicitly states that an NFT is a cryptographic token in the context of the claimed invention. As discussed above regarding claim 4, the NFT is the digital asset being selected and subsequently requested and linked to the physical object tag in step 316 of Davis. Also as discussed above, the NFT linking is to ensuring authenticity of the physical object (Col 5 lines 8-10). Accordingly, Davis teaches the cryptographic token being an NFT.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Younger alone are moot because Davis teaches the limitations of claim 9. Applicant’s arguments against a combination to teach the NFT are moot because Davis, the primary reference, teaches the NFT of claim 9. Applicant’s arguments appear to indicate that Younger is used as the primary reference, which it is not. The incorporation of Younger’s same-device scanning of a NFC tag would not impact the cryptographic token of Davis being an NFT. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and claim 9 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 33-34 that claim 10, wherein the physical object is one or more of: footwear, apparel, art, equipment, an event ticket, and a functional asset, is not taught by Davis and Younger. Applicant again appears to address Younger as the primary reference when Davis is the primary reference throughout the rejections. Applicant also appears to argue that the combination of Davis and Younger does not teach claim 10 because all of the listed object types are not taught. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 10 states “wherein the physical object is one or more of: footwear, apparel, art, equipment, an event ticket, and a functional asset” (emphasis added). As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim only requires that one of these categories be taught in the art. Applicant admits on pages 33-34 of the Remarks that Davis teaches footwear and apparel, which Davis does in at least Col. 2 lines 66-67 "Tag 104 may be embedded into the fabric of clothing item 100" and Col. 3 lines 8-10 "clothing item 100 may include other apparel and accessories such as pants, shirts, jackets, scarves, hats, shoes, belts, purses, and/or bags". Accordingly, Davis teaches the broadest reasonable of claim 10.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Younger alone are moot because Davis teaches the limitations of claim 10. Applicant’s arguments against a combination to teach the types of physical objects are moot because Davis, the primary reference, teaches the physical object types of claim 10. Applicant’s arguments appear to indicate that Younger is used as the primary reference, which it is not. The incorporation of Younger’s same-device scanning of a NFC tag would not be frustrated because the objects in Davis are apparel and footwear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized a NFC tag in a toy operating differently from and NFC tag in apparel or footwear, so the combination in claim 1 is not frustrated by the physical objects being footwear or apparel. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and claim 10 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 34-37 that claim 11 is not taught by Davis and Younger. Applicant argues that Davis does “not describe computer program products” on page 35 of Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Davis recites in Col. 11 lines 21-32 "Device 700 may perform these operations in response to processor 720 executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 730. A computer-readable medium may be defined as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device may include space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices. The software instructions may be read into memory 730 from another computer-readable medium or from another device. The software instructions stored in memory 730 may cause processor 720 to perform processes described herein". The memory device of Davis is a non-transitory computer readable medium, which comprises the software instructions/program to run the claimed method when executed by the processor of Davis. A computer readable medium outside of the device may provide the instructions as well. Accordingly, the memory/computer-readable medium of Davis reads on the computer program product comprising instructions to performed the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Younger alone are moot because Davis teaches the structural limitations of claim 11. Applicant’s arguments against a combination to teach a non-transitory computer program product are moot because Davis, the primary reference, teaches the non-transitory computer program product of claim 11. The incorporation of Younger’s same-device scanning of a NFC tag would not be frustrated because the instructions are stored on a non-transitory computer program product. Younger teaches in [0068] computer-readable media comprising instructions to perform its methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the instructions and computer readable media of Younger being incompatible with the instructions on a computer readable media of Davis, so the combination in claim 1 is not frustrated by the computer program product storing the instructions to perform the method of claims 1. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and claim 11 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 12 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 37-40. Applicant’s claim 12 arguments appear to be substantial duplicates of the arguments regarding claim 1. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments against claim 12 are either unpersuasive or moot. Claim 12 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 13 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 40-42. Applicant’s claim 13 arguments appear to be substantially similar to the arguments regarding claim 2. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 2, Applicant’s arguments against claim 13 are unpersuasive. Claim 13 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 15 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 42-44. Applicant’s claim 15 arguments appear to be substantially similar to the arguments regarding claim 4. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 4, Applicant’s arguments against claim 15 are unpersuasive. Claim 15 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 20 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 44-45. Applicant’s claim 20 arguments appear to be substantially similar to the arguments regarding claim 9. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 9, Applicant’s arguments against claim 20 are unpersuasive. Claim 20 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 21 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 45-47. Applicant’s claim 21 arguments appear to be substantially similar to the arguments regarding claim 10. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 10, Applicant’s arguments against claim 21 are unpersuasive. Claim 21 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant next argues that claim 22 is not taught by the combination of Davis and Younger on pages 47-51. Applicant’s claim 22 arguments appear to be substantial duplicates of the arguments regarding claim 1. For the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments against claim 22 are either unpersuasive or moot. Claim 22 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, all of Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art are either unpersuasive or moot. All pending claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the request message enables verification of the authenticity of the physical object by including an indication to associate or not associate the digital asset with the physical object” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification discusses the request message in paragraphs [0011], [0016], [0021], [0100], and [0101]. In more than one of these paragraphs, the request message is described as “compris[ing] the unique identifier and data associated with the digital asset”. In [0016] and [0101], the request message is further described as “compris[ing] an indication to associate the digital asset with the physical object” (emphasis added). However, in none of these paragraphs, nor in the remainder of the specification as-filed and the originally filed claims, is the request message recited as potentially having an indication to NOT associate the indicated digital asset and physical object.
Applicant’s Remarks (Page 25, dated 02/27/2026) appear to cite to specification [0111] “Verification is a process where the owner of a physical object with an embedded NFC chip scans the chip and reviews details about the digital asset that is connected to the NFC chip. Here, the user is able to connect their crypto wallet to prove they own, or do not own, the digital asset companion to the physical object”. However, this verification process is not a request message comprising an indicator to associate or not associate a digital asset with a physical object. Instead this verification process is checking whether a user’s wallet (something not present in the claimed invention) owns a particular digital asset. This specification paragraph explicitly states that the physical object and digital asset are “companion”/associated with each other. A check of whether a user owns a digital asset is not a request to not associate the digital asset and physical object. A user may not own a digital asset, but the digital asset may still be associated with the physical object.
While the specification has support for the request message not necessarily including an indication to associate the digital asset and physical object, Applicant’s disclosure as filed does not provide any evidence that, at the time of filing, the inventors had possession of the invention in which the request message comprises an indication to NOT associate the digital asset with the physical object. In other words, the disclosure’s support for not necessarily indicating to associate does not provide support for explicitly indicating to NOT associate as has now been amended into claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Independent claims 11, 12, and 22 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasoning as claim 1. Dependent claims 2, 4, 9-10, 13, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on their respective independent claims.
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, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite pairing a physical object and digital asset to be sold together.
As an initial matter, claims 1-2, 4, and 9-10 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claim 11 falls into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claims 12-13, 15, and 20-21, and 22 all fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Claim 1 recites the concept of pairing a physical object and digital asset to be sold together which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method for enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object by associating an asset with the physical object, the method comprising: receiving a user input selecting a record associated with the asset, wherein the record includes information describing the physical object; receiving a unique identifier associated with the physical object, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, wherein the unique identifier is obtained; and a request message, wherein the request message comprises the unique identifier and data associated with the asset, wherein the request message enables verification of the authenticity of the physical object by including an indication to associate or not associate the asset with the physical object all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “computer-implemented” method, a computing device, and transmitting a message. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID. The additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “computer-implemented” method, a computing device, and transmitting a message amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID, and the additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a pre-encoded uniform resource locator (url). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a pre-encoded uniform resource locator (url) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer implementation cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a graphical display. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a graphical display is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a non-fungible token (NFT). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a non-fungible token (NFT) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of non-fungible tokens. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 8 still amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of non-fungible tokens. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the concept of pairing a physical object and digital asset to be sold together which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Instructions which, when executed, carry out the method of claim 1 all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, processing circuitry, and the additional elements from claim 1 (a “computer-implemented” method, a computing device, and transmitting a message, scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier, a digital asset including a cryptographic token). The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens (see rejection of claim 1). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, processing circuitry, and the additional elements from claim 1 ((a “computer-implemented” method, a computing device, and transmitting a message, scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier, a digital asset including a cryptographic token) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the concept of pairing a physical object and digital asset to be sold together which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Instructions executable for enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object associating an asset with the physical object, operative to: select a record associated with the asset, wherein the record includes information describing the physical object; receive a unique identifier associated with the physical object, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, wherein the unique identifier is obtained; and a request message, wherein the request message comprises the unique identifier and data associated with the asset, wherein the request message enables verification of the authenticity of the physical object by including an indication to associate or not to associate the asset with the physical object all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device, processing circuitry, a memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry, and transmitting a message. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID. The additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing device, processing circuitry, a memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry, and transmitting a message amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID, and the additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of claim 12 while introducing the additional element of a pre-encoded uniform resource locator (url). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a pre-encoded uniform resource locator (url) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 12 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer implementation cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea of claim 12 while introducing the additional element of a graphical display. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a graphical display interface is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 12 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 further limits the abstract idea of claim 12 while introducing the additional element of a non-fungible token (NFT). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a non-fungible token (NFT) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of non-fungible tokens. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 19 still amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of non-fungible tokens. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 further limits the abstract idea of claim 12 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 12 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites the concept of pairing a physical object and digital asset to be sold together which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object by associating an asset with the physical object, configured to: select a record associated with the asset; wherein the record includes information describing the physical object; receive a unique identifier associated with the physical object, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, wherein the unique identifier is obtained; and a request message, wherein the request message comprises the unique identifier and data associated with the asset, wherein the request message enables verification of the authenticity of the physical object by including an indication to associate or not to associate the digital asset with the physical object all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an apparatus, a memory, processing circuitry, processing circuitry coupled to the memory, and transmitting a message. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID. The additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an apparatus, a memory, processing circuitry, processing circuitry coupled to the memory, and transmitting a message amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of scanning a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the physical object to obtain the unique identifier is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of NFC/RFID, and the additional element of a digital asset including a cryptographic token is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of cryptographic tokens. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the exception to the fields of NFC/RFID and cryptographic tokens. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, 4, 9-13, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. 11,348,152; hereafter known as Davis) in view of Younger et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0270324, hereafter known as Younger) and Tashiro (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0039171, hereafter known as Tashiro).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches:
A computer-implemented method for enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object by associating a digital asset with the physical object, the method comprising (see Fig. 3 and Col. 4 line 32 thru Col. 6 line 51 for overall method. See steps 302-304 for tagging a physical object, steps 306-308 for selecting a NFT, and 310-316 for the linking the NFT and the object together. See Col. 2 lines 32-38 “the embedded tag may be used to verify the authenticity of the associated good. For instance, the embedded tag may verify purchase history of the good from an authorized retailer, the manufacturing date and/or location of the good, and/or other information to prove that the good originated from a particular merchant, brand, or seller” and Col. 1 line 66 thru Col. 2 line 2 “The systems and methods may provide additional value by verifying combined ownership and/or possession of that good and the NFT for the particular artwork presented on that good” and Col. 10 lines 27-47 and Col. 5 line 66 thru Col. 6 line 3 for the validation of information of the buyer via data linked to an embedded tag for the enabling of authenticity using the methods of Davis)
receiving, by a computing device, a user input, selecting a record associated with the digital asset, wherein the record includes information describing the physical object and wherein the digital asset includes a cryptographic token (see Fig. 3 steps 306 and 308 and Col. 5 lines 4-39, particularly lines 5-8 "a user may access a NFT minting node of NFT-linked-goods system 200 and/or a website or interface provided by the NFT minting node in order to select and/or purchase an NFT artifact", lines 17-21 "The NFT minting node may present different NFT artifacts or NFT collections that are available for minting and/or purchase via a website or application. In some embodiments, the user may select which NFT artifact the user wishes to purchase", lines 25-29 "the NFT minting node may present different physical goods that may be linked to the NFT. For instance, the user may select a particular NFT or NFT artifact, and a specific item of clothing to be linked to the particular NFT or NFT artifact", and lines 33-35 "Minting (at 308) the particular NFT may include generating, allocating, and/or reserving the particular NFT for the user" for selecting a NFT digital asset, which is a cryptographic token, record to be linked. See Col. 2 lines 55-65 for the NFT storing an edition or serial number and Col. 3 lines 8-16 and Col. 5 lines 53-56 for the NFT itself being printed on the object for the digital asset including information describing the physical object)
receiving a unique identifier associated with the physical object, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, wherein the unique identifier is obtained by (see Steps 302 and 310 and Col. 5 lines 40-60 "Process 300 may include selecting (at 310) a good with an embedded tag to link to the particular NFT...In some embodiments, selecting (at 310) the good may include selecting a good that has an embedded tag and a surface onto which the artifact associated with the particular NFT may be transferred, printed, and/or otherwise affixed. In some such embodiments, a printing device or other manufacturing equipment under control of NFT-linked-goods system 200 may be used to transfer, print, and/or otherwise affix the artifact associated with the particular NFT onto the selected good" and Step 316 and Col. 6 lines 30-33 "Linking (at 316) the particular NFT may include linking the URL that is encoded in the embedded tag of the selected good to the public information from the user profile" for receiving the identified URL from the selected physical object as part of the linking process. See Col. 2 line 66 thru Col. 3 line 4 and Col. 4 line 38 thru Col. 5 line 3 for the physical objects including at least one NFC or RFID tag)
and transmitting a request message, wherein the request message comprises the unique identifier and data associated with the digital asset, wherein the request message enables verification of the authenticity of the physical object by including an indication to associate (see Step 316 and Col. 6 lines 29-39 "Process 300 may include linking (at 316) the particular NFT to the selected good. Linking (at 316) the particular NFT may include linking the URL that is encoded in the embedded tag of the selected good to the public information from the user profile. The URL encoded within the tag and the tag itself are not modified. Instead, NFT-linked-goods system 200 may generate one or more scripts, links, codes for dynamically populating the website that is accessed using the URL with the public information from the user profile and/or with the latest ownership information stored for the particular NFT on the blockchain" for the system updating the physical object URL with NFT ownership and user profile information based on the requested NFT and physical object. See Fig. 7 and Col. 10 lines 48-53 for the same device performing the minting and linking functions of system 200. See Col. 10 lines 27-47 and Col. 5 line 66 thru Col. 6 line 3 for the validation of information of the buyer via data linked to an embedded tag for the enabling of authenticity using the methods of Davis)
Davis further teaches in Col. 3 lines 19-25 "As shown in FIG. 2, a reader, scanner, and/or other device 202 that may read and/or scan tag 104 may be positioned near tag 104. For instance, tag 104 may be embedded under the presentation of artifact 102 on clothing item 100, and device 202 may be positioned next to the presentation of artifact 102 in order to read the value encoded within tag 104. While Davis teaches the linking process requiring the URL encoded into the embedded tag of the selected good and that the device of Fig. 7 is also capable of performing the scanning functionality (Col. 10 lines 48-53), Davis not explicitly teach that the scanning of the embedded tag is performed by the Device 700/system 200 in the embodiment discussed in Davis Fig. 3 of the process linking the embedded tag and digital asset. While Davis teaches the request comprising the URL of the physical object and the NFT further comprising an indication to link the two pieces of information as performed in step 316, Davis also does not explicitly teach the message indicating whether to associate or to not associate the digital asset and physical object. However, Younger teaches:
receiving a unique identifier associated with the physical object, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a near-field communication (NFC) chip or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, wherein the unique identifier is obtained by scanning at least one of the NFC chip or the RFID tag of the physical object (see [0048] “If the user selects to add a new product 636 and they touched the “add” icon 646, a “scan” screen 652 is presented 648. If the user then scans the product 650, the user is directed to the Scan flow chart illustrated at FIG. 7”, [0051] ‘If the app is installed, the unique identifier (UID) associated with the tag is passed to the app 720. The web server location from the NFC tag (i.e., the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) is also passed to the app 722” for the adding of a new product by scanning a tag (NFC tag per [0023]) and receiving a unique identifier of the tag attached to a product. See [0051] “If the product is already added 748, the user is directed to the Link Products flow chart illustrated at FIG. 11” and [0060] for the scanning of the tag attached to a physical object being done in the process of linking a digital asset to the embedded tag of the physical object. In combination with Davis, this scanning of the NFC tag, also in the object of Davis, would be how Davis obtains the URL of the tag in step 310 as discussed above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scan the NFC tag of a physical object to obtain its unique identifier when linking a digital asset with the physical object as in Younger in the system executing the method of Davis. As in Younger, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to add the scanning of the NFC tag of a physical object to obtain its unique identifier to Davis's invention with the predictable result of obtaining the unique ID of the physical object’s tag as needed in Davis. Specifically, Davis teaches that the device 700/system 200 performing the method of claim 3 linking physical and digital assets needs the unique identifier of the physical asset to perform the linking at Step 310. Davis also teaches device 700 is capable of performing the scanning of a tag of a physical object, which is discussed in the embodiment of Fig. 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the scanning of the physical object NFC tag when linking physical and digital objects as in Younger into Davis Fig. 3 because Davis Fig. 3 needs the identifier of the physical object to perform the linking and Davis already teaches that the device performing Fig. 3 is capable of scanning the tag.
The combination of Davis and Younger still does not explicitly teach that the request message contains an indication to associate or not associate the digital asset (NFT) with the physical object (URL of the embedded tag). Tashiro teaches receiving a request comprising an indication of whether or not to associate two pieces of information (see Fig. 9 and [0101] “the user is asked whether the association information is to be saved (step S305). If a selective response indicating that the association information is to be saved is received (Yes in step S305), a document having the association information buried therein (an associated document) is created” and [0102] “If a selective response indicating that the association information is not to be saved is received (No in step S305), any document having the association information buried therein is not saved” for a transmitted request message saying whether or not to associate the information. In combination with Davis and Younger, the user performing the linkage would be given a confirmation prompt to indicate whether the NFT and the token of the physical object selected earlier in the process should be linked)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of providing a user with a confirmation prompt to confirm whether or not to link two pieces of information of Tashiro to the process of linking a digital asset and physical object of the combination of Davis and Younger would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Tashiro to the teaching of the combination of Davis and Younger would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such providing a user with a confirmation prompt to confirm whether or not to link two pieces of information. Further, applying providing a user with a confirmation prompt to confirm whether or not to link two pieces of information to the combination of Davis and Younger would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for more user control over the process. Particularly, the incorporation of the link confirmation prompt would allow users a chance to review the potential link before it is saved and change their minds if they do not want to link the particular NFT with the particular physical object.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Davis further teaches:
wherein the unique identifier is a pre-encoded uniform resource locator (url) (see Col. 3 lines 33-39 "each tag 104 in each clothing item 100 is encoded with a unique or different URL. For instance, a first tag embedded in a first clothing item may be encoded with the first URL “overhyped.io/public/site1”, and the second tag embedded in a second clothing item may be encoded with the second URL “overhyped.io/public/site2”". See Col. 2 line 66 thru Col. 3 line 7 for the URL being the value that links the physical object to the NFT and Col. 4 lines 38-52 for the URL being an immutable, unique identifier of the physical object)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Davis further teaches:
wherein selecting the record comprises selecting the record from a list displayed on a graphical display (see Col. 5 lines 17-21 "The NFT minting node may present different NFT artifacts or NFT collections that are available for minting and/or purchase via a website or application. In some embodiments, the user may select which NFT artifact the user wishes to purchase" for displaying different selectable NFTs on a website or app for a user to select from and Col. 5 lines 5-8 " a user may access a NFT minting node of NFT-linked-goods system 200 and/or a website or interface provided by the NFT minting node in order to select and/or purchase an NFT artifact" for the selection being made via a user interface)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Davis further teaches:
wherein the cryptographic token is a non-fungible token (NFT) (see Col. 2 lines 55-65 "Artifact 102 may include an image, formatted and/or stylized text, video, audio, artwork, and/or other expression. Artifact 102 may exist separately in digital form as a file. A NFT may be minted and/or created to track ownership of artifact 102 on the Ethereum blockchain or other blockchain. For instance, the NFT may include a token or smart contract that is generated from a unique hash of a digital file storing a specific instance (e.g., an original instance, a specific number within a limited series or collection, a first edition, etc.) of artifact 102, and ownership history of that specific instance may be recorded to the token or smart contract" for the digital asset comprising an NFT tracking ownership of the asset on a blockchain. See Col. 1 lines 52-55 for NFT being a non-fungible token, which is a cryptographic token)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Davis further teaches:
wherein the physical object is one or more of: footwear, apparel, art, equipment, an event ticket, and a functional asset (see Col. 2 lines 66-67 "Tag 104 may be embedded into the fabric of clothing item 100" and Col. 3 lines 8-10 "clothing item 100 may include other apparel and accessories such as pants, shirts, jackets, scarves, hats, shoes, belts, purses, and/or bags" for the physical objects embedded with tags comprising footwear, apparel, functional asset, etc.)
Regarding claim 11, Davis teaches:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to carry out the method of claim 1 (see Col. 11 lines 21-32 "Device 700 may perform these operations in response to processor 720 executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 730. A computer-readable medium may be defined as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device may include space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices. The software instructions may be read into memory 730 from another computer-readable medium or from another device. The software instructions stored in memory 730 may cause processor 720 to perform processes described herein". See citations in the rejection of claim 1 above for the operations performed by Device 700 and the operations of Younger and Tashiro being the method of claim 1)
Regarding claim 12, Davis teaches:
A computing device comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry for enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object associating a digital asset with the physical object, the computing device operative to (see Fig. 7 and Col. 10 lines 48-54 "FIG. 7 is a diagram of example components of device 700. Device 700 may be used to implement one or more of the devices or systems described above (e.g., NFT-linked-goods system 200, device 202, and encoding, manufacturing, printing, NFT minting, and/or other devices or equipment controlled by NFT-linked-goods system 200). Device 700 may include bus 710, processor 720, memory 730" for a device comprising a processor/processing circuitry and a memory. See Col. 11 lines 21-32 "Device 700 may perform these operations in response to processor 720 executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 730. A computer-readable medium may be defined as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device may include space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices. The software instructions may be read into memory 730 from another computer-readable medium or from another device. The software instructions stored in memory 730 may cause processor 720 to perform processes described herein" for the memory having instructions to perform the processes of linking digital assets and physical objects)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 12, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 13, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 15, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 20, see the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Davis, Younger, and Tashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 21, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 22, Davis teaches:
An apparatus for enabling verification of authenticity of a physical object by associating a digital asset with the physical object, the apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory, wherein the apparatus is configured to (see Fig. 7 and Col. 10 lines 48-54 "FIG. 7 is a diagram of example components of device 700. Device 700 may be used to implement one or more of the devices or systems described above (e.g., NFT-linked-goods system 200, device 202, and encoding, manufacturing, printing, NFT minting, and/or other devices or equipment controlled by NFT-linked-goods system 200). Device 700 may include bus 710, processor 720, memory 730" for an apparatus comprising a processor/processing circuitry and a memory that implements the linkage of NFTs and physical objects. See Col. 10 lines 59-65 "Bus 710 may include one or more communication paths that permit communication among the components of device 700. Processor 720 may include a processor, microprocessor, or processing logic that may interpret and execute instructions. Memory 730 may include any type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 720" for a bus connecting the processor and memory)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 22, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spivack et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0366061) teaches verifying the authenticity of a physical entity with a NFT
Chen et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0215382) teaches a blockchain based product authentication system
Madhusudhan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0070389) teaches creating an NFT from a physical asset and validating the authenticity of the asset
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628