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 the Claims
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 12/07/2023, 06/26/2025, 07/25/2025, and 10/21/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, specifically certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Examiner disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong One the evaluation determines whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 of the applicant’s invention is sets forth associating or claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object to grant user access, verify ownership, etc., and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions; managing personal interactions, relationships, behavior), as evidence by limitations detailing determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset]. The claim limitations describe concepts directly relating to commercial interactions and business relations as well as managing personal interactions, relationships, and/or behavior. Further, the Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification indicates in the Background that: “[003] A new breed of entrepreneur has emerged. Creators of all persuasions - entertainers, athletes, artists, gamers - have massive audiences who crave authentic interaction and engagement with the creators they adore. Historically, these creators have had limited options for engaging and monetizing their fanbases, and their fans have had limited options to support and signal their affiliation with the creators. [004] Digital assets, such as cryptographic (“Crypto”) tokens, like non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), have emerged to help fill the gap. 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.” Further, the Summary discloses “[009] An advantage of embodiments disclosed herein is that they provide an efficient method for utilizing the benefits of digital assets in the physical world. 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. [010] Another advantage of embodiments disclosed herein is a reliable method of gatekeeping access. Since ownership of a physical object linked with a digital asset cannot be forged, ownership of the object and/or digital asset may provide an efficient way to grant access, for example, to an event, or to exclusive content. A user determining whether to grant access can be assured only persons on a list, those that own a digital asset and/or a physical object with a NFC chip, will be allowed.” Thus, in addition to the claims reciting a judicial exception, when considered in light of the specification, the focus of the claims is on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the human mind is not equipped to perform the method of claim 1 such as “receiving an identifier identifying [the physical object], wherein the identifier is obtained by [the computing device] scanning [the physical object]; identifying [the digital asset] associated with [the physical object]; and determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset]”. Examiner disagrees. The claim corresponds to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving an identifier identifying [the physical object], wherein the identifier is obtained by [the computing device] scanning [the physical object]; identifying [the digital asset] associated with [the physical object]; and determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset], all of which demonstrates observation, evaluation, and making a determination (judgment or opinion) based off of the observed and evaluated data. The receiving, identifying, and determining steps may be performed mentally. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant further argues that the combination of additional elements integrates the abstract idea into a practically application, specifically improving the functioning of a computer or improvement or technology. Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a computing device, digital asset linked with a physical object, a wallet, processing circuitry and memory (claims 14 and 26). The additional elements of the computing device, processing circuitry, and memory are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The additional elements of a wallet and digital asset linked with a physical object amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object does not improve the functioning of a computer or technology. The computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the judicial exception. At best, the alleged improvement indicates an improvement in the judicial exception itself, but not an improvement computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
Applicant further argues that the claim includes an inventive concept because the Office has not provided evidence proving that the features recite in claim 1 are well-understood, routing, or conventional. Examiner disagrees and this argument is invalid. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, as well as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. At Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. In the instant Application, the claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Further, there was no assertion that the additional elements/limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B, thus no requirement of evidence of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity according to Berkheimer is necessary.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Davis in view of Rush does not disclose the specific determining step as required by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The claim limitation recites “determining whether a wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting the digital asset.” Davis discloses minting an NFT, but does not explicitly disclose a wallet and identifier associated with minting the digital asset. As such, Davis does not explicitly disclose determining whether a wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting the digital asset. Rush suggests or discloses this limitation/concept. Rush ¶0030 discloses providing a wallet that can hold non-fungible tokens (NFTs) or redeemable NFTs (rNFTs) and that is associated with a unique number, code (numeric or alphabet or alphanumeric) such as, for example, a user's telephone number; dots can be minted and held in wallets as a digital object. ¶0038 discloses that the server device identifies via the message a unique code associated with the user computing device, mints a dot associated with the benefit and stores the dot in a wallet associated with the unique number. This step necessitates determining that the digital asserts match the wallet identifier. Further, ¶0046 also discloses that the wallet and dots can be minted or created through the use of the code and are typically recoded on blockchain. ¶0068 also discloses the redemption system which receives from point "A" the unique code and the campaign identifier from the computing device of FIG. 2A. The business logic will send the confirmation response at point "B" to the computing device in FIG. 2A. The business logic 232 will cause a database to store the user's unique code and uses that data to mint a dot linked to the consumer's wallet which also necessitates determining the identifiers match. Lastly, ¶0072-¶0073 discloses a table which stores data that correlates phone numbers with one or more of wallet identifiers (IDs) and NFT/dot IDs. Each wallet ID or NFT/dot ID can correspond to one or more blockchain networks. When the entry is made with the phone number, the wallet-ID-I is generated for that user and an NFT/dot is minted and those entries are added to the table. The data in the table links the respective phone number with one or more of the wallets and zero or more dots within each linked wallet. The same phone number 1 can also reference to a wallet-ID-I and a different NFT/dot-ID-2. This table provides an example of how the database can be structured to provide the necessary association of the user's phone number with the wallet and/or dots recorded in various blockchain networks.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 14-25 recite a device (i.e. machine), and claims 26 recites an apparatus (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-26 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 26 recite the limitations of receiving an identifier identifying [the physical object], wherein the identifier is obtained by [the computing device] scanning [the physical object]; identifying [the digital asset] associated with [the physical object]; and determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset]. The claims are related to associating or claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object to grant user access, verify ownership, etc., and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions; managing personal interactions, relationships, behavior), as evidenced by limitations detailing determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset]. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving an identifier identifying [the physical object], wherein the identifier is obtained by [the computing device] scanning [the physical object]; identifying [the digital asset] associated with [the physical object]; and determining whether a wallet identifier associated with [a wallet] that owns [the digital asset] matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting [the digital asset], all of which demonstrates observation, evaluation, and making a determination (judgment or opinion) based off of the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the elements or features in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a computing device, digital asset linked with a physical object, a wallet, processing circuitry and memory (claims 14 and 26). The additional elements of the computing device, processing circuitry, and memory are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The additional elements of a wallet and digital asset linked with a physical object amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 15 recite the limitation that the [physical object] include a [near-field communication (NFC) chip] and the identifier is obtained by the [computing device] scanning the [NFC chip] of the [physical object]. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the physical object, the computing device, and an NFC chip. The physical object and NFC chip amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The computing device amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 17 recite the limitation that as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the [digital asset] matches the initial wallet identifier, obtaining an [encrypted token]; and transmitting the [encrypted token] to the [computing device]. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the digital asset, computing device, and an encrypted token. The computing device amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The digital asset and encrypted token amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7 and 20 recite the limitation receiving a claiming message, wherein the claiming message comprises [a key] associated with [a wallet] and the [encrypted token]. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of a key, a wallet, and the encrypted token. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 24 recite the limitation that the digital asset includes a cryptographic token. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the digital asset including a cryptographic token. The digital asset/cryptographic token amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 12 and 25 recite the limitation that the cryptographic token is a non-fungible token (NFT). The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the cryptographic token being a non-fungible token (NFT). The NFT amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 17-20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 11,348,152) in view of Rush (2024/0005354).
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object, the method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device, an identifier identifying the physical object, wherein the identifier is obtained by the computing device scanning the physical object; (Davis Col. 3, Ln. 20-25 and Fig. 2 disclosing a reader, scanner, and/or other device that may read and/or scan tag may be positioned near tag; for instance, tag may be embedded under the presentation of artifact on clothing item, and device 202 (computing device) may be positioned next to the presentation of artifact in order to read the value encoded within tag; Col. 3, Ln. 3-5 disclosing the value may include a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"), network identifier, and/or other data written to tag)
identifying the digital asset associated with the physical object; and (Davis Col. 3, Ln. 34-40 and 47-52 disclosing NFT-linked-goods system may link the NFT associated with the purchased clothing item to the profile or the unique URL so that whenever the unique URL is accessed, the latest NFT data may be retrieved from the blockchain and presented on the website)
Davis in view of Rush discloses:
determining whether a wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting the digital asset.
Davis discloses minting an NFT, but does not explicitly disclose a wallet and identifier associated with minting the digital asset. As such, Davis does not explicitly disclose determining whether a wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting the digital asset. Rush suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Rush ¶0030 disclosing providing a wallet that can hold non-fungible tokens (NFTs) or redeemable NFTs (rNFTs) and that is associated with a unique number, code (numeric or alphabet or alphanumeric) such as, for example, a user's telephone number; dots can be minted and held in wallets as a digital object; ¶0038 disclosing the server device identifies via the message a unique code associated with the user computing device, mints a dot associated with the benefit and stores the dot in a wallet associated with the unique number; see also ¶0046, ¶0068, ¶0072-¶0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis to include determining whether a wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset matches an initial wallet identifier, wherein the initial wallet identifier is associated with minting the digital asset as taught by Rush. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Davis in order to use NFTs or other digital objects as next generation coupons, promo codes, and other functions while held in wallets as digital objects (see ¶0030 of Rush).
Claims 14 and 26 are directed to a device and apparatus, respectively. Claims 14 and 26 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claims 14 and 26 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Further, claims 14 and 26 recites:
(Claim 14): A computing device comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry for claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object, the computing device operative to: (Davis Col. 11, Ln. 21-36 disclosing the device may perform the operations in response to processor executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory; a memory device may include space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices; the software instructions stored in memory may cause processor to perform processes described herein; hardwired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement processes described herein)
(Claim 26): An apparatus for claiming a digital asset linked with a physical object, the apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory, wherein the apparatus is configured to: (Davis Col. 11, Ln. 21-36 disclosing the device may perform the operations in response to processor executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory; a memory device may include space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices; the software instructions stored in memory may cause processor to perform processes described herein; hardwired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement processes described herein)
Claim 2: The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the physical object includes a near-field communication (NFC) chip and the identifier is obtained by the computing device scanning the NFC chip of the physical object. (Davis Col. 2, Ln. 66-Col. 3, Ln. 3 disclosing the tag may be embedded into the fabric of clothing item and/or directly under or adjacent to artifact; tag may include an NFC integrated circuit, and/or other machine-readable chip or circuit that stores and/or is encoded with a value)
Claim 15 is directed to a device. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 4: The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising:
as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the digital asset matches the initial wallet identifier, obtaining an encrypted token; and transmitting the encrypted token to the computing device.
Davis discloses an encrypted token, but does not explicitly disclose as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the digital asset matches the initial wallet identifier, obtaining an encrypted token; and transmitting the encrypted token to the computing device. Rush suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Rush ¶0034 disclosing validating the data as being associated with a valid campaign to yield a validation; based the validation, transmitting, from the server device, a communication to the user computing device that launches a messaging application on the user computing device, creates and prepopulates a message ready for the user to send; receiving, based on the user confirming to send the message from the user computing device, the message from the user computing device, the message including a unique code associated with the user computing device; minting a dot associated with the benefit in connection with the data, wherein the dot is recorded on a blockchain network that includes a distributed set of nodes operating a distributed consensus algorithm and records transactions on a distributed ledger such that each transaction is immutably recorded; linking the dot to a wallet for the user via the unique code associated with the user computing device; and transmitting a confirmation response to the user computing device to confirm that the user has claimed the benefit; ¶0039 disclosing receiving an indication from a company computing device of an intent of a user to apply a benefit from a dot held in a user wallet, wherein the indication includes a unique code associated with a user computing device and a brand identifier; confirming, based on a link between the unique code and the user wallet, that the user wallet contains the dot and that the benefit is available to yield a confirmation; based on the confirmation, returning to the company computing device a response identifying the benefit to apply the benefit to an action performed by the user; ¶0074 disclosing if someone airdrops an NFT into wallet-ID-1, if the system can get the ID of the wallet and an ID of the dot, then the phone number can be tied to another wallet or the same wallet and another dot that is dropped into the Web3 wallet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis to include that as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the digital asset matches the initial wallet identifier, obtaining an encrypted token; and transmitting the encrypted token to the computing device as taught by Rush. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Davis in order to use NFTs or other digital objects as next generation coupons, promo codes, and other functions while held in wallets as digital objects (see ¶0030 of Rush).
Claim 17 is directed to a device. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The computer-implemented method according to claim 4,
wherein the encrypted token comprises one or more of: a digital asset identifier associated with the digital asset, a group identifier associated with the digital asset, and a time identifier.
Davis discloses the encrypted token comprises one or more of: a digital asset identifier associated with the digital asset and a time identifier: (Davis Col. 3, Ln. 1-5 disclosing the tag including a NFC, RFID, integrate circuit and/or other machine-readable chip that stores or is encoded with a value; the value may include a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"), network identifier, and/or other data written to tag; see also Col. 3, Ln. 34-39; Col. 10, Ln. 18-25 disclosing using a cryptographically secure tag and generating cryptographically secure signature(s) by encrypting a unique identifier or electronic product code; Col. 10, Ln. 4-7 disclosing encoding embedded tag with a URL and an encrypted message generator that generates a unique message or value each time tag is read; Fig. 6, 603 also disclosing the time identifier). Davis does not explicitly disclose that the encrypted token comprises a group identifier, however rush discloses or suggests this limitation/concept: (Rush ¶0072 disclosing stores data that correlates phone numbers with one or more of wallet identifiers (IDs) and NFT/dot IDs; each wallet ID or NFT/dot ID can correspond to one or more blockchain networks; the first two rows of the table include a reference to the same phone number 1; the first entry correlates the phone number 1 to a wallet-ID-I and an NFT/dot ID-1; one or more of the IDs in the first row can refer to data on Blockchain No. 1; when the entry is made with the phone number, the wallet-ID-I is generated for that user and an NFT/dot is minted and those entries are added to the table; the data in the table links the respective phone number with one or more of the wallets and zero or more dots within each linked wallet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis to include that the encrypted token comprises one or more of: a digital asset identifier associated with the digital asset, a group identifier associated with the digital asset, and a time identifier as taught by Rush. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Davis in order to use NFTs or other digital objects as next generation coupons, promo codes, and other functions while held in wallets as digital objects (see ¶0030 of Rush).
Claim 18 is directed to a device. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim 6: The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the encrypted token comprises a success uniform resource locator (url) redirect and/or an NFC chip serial number associated with the physical object. (Davis Col. 2, Ln. 66-Col. 3, Ln. 3 disclosing the tag may be embedded into the fabric of clothing item and/or directly under or adjacent to artifact; tag may include an NFC integrated circuit, and/or other machine-readable chip or circuit that stores and/or is encoded with a value)
Claim 19 is directed to a device. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Claim 7: The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, further comprising:
receiving a claiming message, wherein the claiming message comprises a key associated with a wallet and the encrypted token.
Davis discloses an NFT transaction or exchange, but does not explicitly disclose receiving a claiming message, wherein the claiming message comprises a key associated with a wallet and the encrypted token. Rush discloses or suggests this limitation/concept: (Rush ¶0037 disclosing receiving an interaction associated with a user that initiates a request associated with a benefit; generating, via the messaging application, a message prepopulated for transmission to the server device; upon a confirmation from the user to send the message, transmitting the message to the server device, wherein the server device identifies via the message a unique code associated with the user computing device, mints a dot associated with the benefit and stores the dot in a wallet associated with the unique number; receiving a confirmation response at the user computing device to confirm that the user has claimed the benefit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis to include receiving a claiming message, wherein the claiming message comprises a key associated with a wallet and the encrypted token as taught by Rush. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Davis in order to use NFTs or other digital objects as next generation coupons, promo codes, and other functions while held in wallets as digital objects (see ¶0030 of Rush).
Claim 20 is directed to a device. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a method. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim 11: The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the digital asset includes a cryptographic token. (Davis Col. 1, Ln. 54-55 disclosing a non-fungible token; also Col. 10, Ln. 18-25 disclosing using a cryptographically secure tag and generating cryptographically secure signature(s) by encrypting a unique identifier or electronic product code)
Claim 24 is directed to a device. Claim 24 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 11, which is directed towards a method. Claim 24 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 11.
Claim 12: The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the cryptographic token is a non-fungible token (NFT). (Davis Col. 1, Ln. 54-55 disclosing a non-fungible token; also Col. 10, Ln. 18-25 disclosing using a cryptographically secure tag and generating cryptographically secure signature(s) by encrypting a unique identifier or electronic product code)
Claim 25 is directed to a device. Claim 25 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 12, which is directed towards a method. Claim 25 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 12.
Claim 13: 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. (Davis Col. 11, Ln. 20-25 disclosing device may perform certain operations relating to one or more processes described above; performing these operations in response to processor executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory; a computer-readable medium may be defined as a non-transitory memory device)
Claim(s) 8-10 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 11,348,152) in view of Rush (2024/0005354) further in view of Medure (US 12,277,562).
Claim 8: The computer-implemented method according to claim 7, further comprising:
determining the time identifier has not expired; and transferring the digital asset to the wallet of the user.
Davis discloses a time identifier (Davis Col. 10, Ln. 4-7 disclosing encoding embedded tag with a URL and an encrypted message generator that generates a unique message or value each time tag is read; Fig. 6, 603 also disclosing the time identifier). Davis does not explicitly disclose determining the time identifier has not expired, and transferring the digital asset to the wallet of the user. Medure suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Medure Fig. 4 and Col. 21, Ln. 13-14, 21-24 disclosing an interactive element that includes a barcode and a corresponding numeric code; the barcode of the interactive element also includes an Argentinian flag and a Bitcoin symbol, indicating that the interactive element is specific to an exchange between ARS and Bitcoin; Col. 21, Ln. 45-49 disclosing the interactive element is encoded with data enabling the transfer of funds via one or more networks; such data can include…an expiry time; an interaction with the interactive element can cause a first attempt to transfer funds via the first network; Col. 29, Ln. 41-54 disclosing the asset exchange system is configured to, and can, dynamically change at least a subset of the data that is encoded in the interactive element over time; the interactive element can be dynamic, and can change periodically so that the interactive element expires and is replaced periodically; e.g., the interactive element can be generated with certain restrictions, for instance to be temporarily usable for up to a particular threshold time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis in view of Rush to include determining the time identifier has not expired; and transferring the digital asset to the wallet of the user as taught by Medure. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Davis in view of Rush in order to enable the digital asset to be generated with restrictions (see Col. 29, Ln. 47-48 of Medure).
Claim 21 is directed to a device. Claim 21 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards a method. Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Claim 9: The computer-implemented method according to claim 8, further comprising: receiving a payment identifier associated with the physical object. (Davis Col. 5, Ln. 29-31 disclosing the request to mint the NFT may include payment for purchasing the NFT artifact, NFT, or good that is linked to the NFT; see also Fig. 5, 501,509)
Claim 22 is directed to a device. Claim 22 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards a method. Claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Claim 10: The computer-implemented method according to claim 9, wherein the digital asset is transferred after receiving the payment identifier. (Davis Col. 6, Ln. 42-47 disclosing in the event that the particular NFT is sold (payment received) and/or the particular NFT ownership information changes on the blockchain, the website that is accessed using the unique URL encoded to the embedded tag of the selected good will automatically update to reflect the latest ownership information)
Claim 23 is directed to a device. Claim 23 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards a method. Claim 23 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art reference is applied to the following claims:
Claim 3: The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the digital asset does not match the initial wallet identifier, directing a user of the computing device to a verification webpage; receiving a user wallet identifier; and determining whether the user wallet identifier matches the wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset.
Claim 16: The computing device according to claim 14, the computing device operative to: as a result of determining the wallet identifier associated with the digital asset does not match the initial wallet identifier, direct a user of the computing device to a verification webpage; receive a user wallet identifier; and determine whether the user wallet identifier matches the wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset.
The closest prior art reference found related to the claim is Mutter (2019/0303921) which discloses that if the public and/or private keys and the Coinapult keys do not match, the user will not have access to their account and the asset transfer system and the system will make the suer aware. The reference does not suggest directing a user of the computing device to a verification webpage, receiving a user wallet identifier and determining whether the user wallet identifier matches the wallet identifier associated with a wallet that owns the digital asset.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628