DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 1/14/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
101
The applicant argues that the limitations of claim 1 are not directed to an abstract idea because the steps of claim 1 are specific to transfer of digital assets that cannot be performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, as the human mind is not equipped to transfer digital assets (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 9 and 10). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. The transferring of assets and the recording of the transfer on a ledger is an abstract idea that can be performed by humans. The use of "digital assets" is generally linking the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of computers. Using computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further the applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and rather is directed to computer-specific activity and technical improvements in the technical field of transferring digital assets. Specifically the applicant argues that the specification in sections [0005], [0062], and [0072] capture the technical improvement and that claim 1 reflects the asserted improvement (e.g., providing the ability for digital assets to be securely transferred out from and/or in to a digital asset vault (e.g., in transaction and/or for use in virtual environments) and an improved asse tracking history for all assets transferred that are securely stored for audit or other purposes) which is sufficient to establish a practical application (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 10-12). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception of the claim cannot provide the improvement. The improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements or can be provided by the additional elements in combination with the recited judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even assuming that the claims recite an improvement, the improvement is provided by the abstract idea and is not an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Instead the additional elements of the claims (e.g. digital asset computing system, memory and processor) is just a computer being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further the use of the blockchain, electronic ledger, digital assets, and electronic record are generally linking the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of the blockchain. Therefore the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
The examiner has considered all of the applicant’s arguments but maintains the 101 rejection.
103
The applicant argues that Mallet fails to disclose “record recordation data associated with the transfer in an electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is transferred from the electronic record to the electronic target location, the recordation data comprising an indication of the electronic target location” because information identifying an environment that an item may be used in is patentably distinct from actually recording data including an indication of an electronic target location when at least one digital asset is transferred from an electronic record to the electronic target location, as recite in claim 1 (see applicant’s arguments/remarks page 14). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. Mallet discloses in sections [0106]-[0109] that a user may request a digital item to use in a particular digital environment. The request includes information that identifies the user and information identifying the particular digital environment(s) and/or the content provider. When the data within the request is verified, the branded digital item may be accessed from the branded digital item blockchain and released for use in the digital environment. Further, Mallet in sections [0133] and [0134] get into more detail about the user requesting the use the branded digital item in a particular digital environment (e.g. video game). The user purchases a branded digital item which is then sent to the digital environment so that the user can use it in the digital environment. Here the digital environment of Mallet reads on the target location of the claims because that is where the digital item is being authorized to be sent and used. Therefore the "information identifying the game (and/or the digital environments) that the branded digital item may be used in" that is added to the blockchain of Mallet reads on the "indication of the electronic target location" that is recorded in an electronic ledger as recited in claim 1.
Further the applicant argues that Berry fails to disclose “store receipt of the at least one digital asset in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is stored back in the electronic record” because Berry does not disclose storing both the at least one digital asset back in the electronic record and storing receipt of the at least one digital asset in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is stored back in the electronic record (see applicant’s arguments/remarks pages 15 and 16). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. Berry in section [0080] discloses that after the authentication NFT is checked-out and used, the authentication NFT is then moved from the activated state to the deactivated state and checked-in to the distributed ledger of the first private distributed trust computing network. This comprises creating a new data block/event object within the distributed ledger of the first private distributed trust computing network. Further in section [0056], Berry discloses that events such as the creation and recordation of a NFT are initiated at a node and communicated to the various nodes. Any of the nodes can validate an event, record the event to the corresponding copy of the distributed ledger and/or broadcast the event, its validation (in the form of an event object), and/or other data to nodes. Therefore Berry discloses that an event object is stored within the distributed ledger on the first private distributed trust computing network when the authentication NFT is being checked-in and stored on the distributed ledger of the first private distributed trust computing network which reads on "store receipt of the at least one digital asset in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is stored back in the electronic record".
The examiner has considered all of the applicant’s arguments but maintains the 103 rejection in view of Mallett and Berry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system, claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claims 17-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 17 recites recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving a plurality of… assets associated with an… record of a user; storing the plurality of… assets as being associated with the… record of a user; receiving a request to check out at least one… asset of the plurality of… assets, wherein the request comprises an… target location for the at least one… asset while the at least one… asset is check out; causing a transfer of the at least one… asset from the… record to the… target location; recording recordation data associated with the transfer in an… ledger in real time when the at least one… asset is transferred from the… record to the… target location, the recordation data comprising an indication of the… target location; receiving the at least one… asset from the… target location; storing the at least one… asset back in the… record; and storing receipt of the at least one… asset in the… ledger in real time when the at least one… asset is stored back in the… record”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental process” groupings of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger which falls under the category of commercial/legal interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships, and concepts performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 is directed to a system that performs the same functions of claim 17 and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions that causes a processor to perform the same functions of claim 17. Therefore Claims 1 and 9 are also directed to the abstract idea of recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1, 9, and 17, such as the use of the at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable storage medium, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger. The use of a processor/server as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Further, the use of the digital assets, electronic record, electronic ledger, and electronic target location is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer/blockchain network) or field of use. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Further, the use of the digital assets, electronic record, electronic ledger, and electronic target location are recited at a high level and are used for generally linking the use of the judicial exception (e.g. recording the use of assets and the return of assets on a ledger) to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer/blockchain) or field of use and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 10 describe the electronic ledger as a blockchain which is generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; claims 3, 11, and 18 recite the abstract idea of identifying a subset of assets and identify a plurality of potential receivers for the subset of assets. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 19 recite the abstract idea of selling assets and receiving funds for the sale. There are no additional elements different from the independent claims that amount to significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 20 recite the abstract idea of a selector choosing a receiver to receive the assets and then sending the receiver the asset. There are no additional elements different from the independent claims that amount to significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210201336 A1 (“Mallett”) and US 20230396610 A1 (“Berry”).
Per claims 1, 9, and 17, Mallet discloses:
digital asset (DA) computing system for transferring digital assets and generating histories associated with the digital assets, the DA computing system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is programed to: (e.g. computer system 102 comprises a computer memory (“memory”) 104, a display 106, one or more Central Processing Units (“CPU”) 108, one or more Input/Output (I/O) devices 110 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, CRT or LCD display, etc.), other computer-readable media 112, and one or more network connections 114. The branded digital item system 100 is shown residing in memory 104) (Section [0057]);
receive a plurality of digital assets associated with an electronic record of a user (e.g. The digital wallet contains information identifying branded digital items purchased by the requesting user. This information may be used to generate a digital wallet GUI that is presented by the client user 160. The digital wallet GUI may use any suitable format to present information about the purchased branded digital items) (Section [0096]-[0099]);
store the plurality of digital assets as being associated with the electronic record (e.g. The digital wallet contains information identifying branded digital items purchased by the requesting user. This information may be used to generate a digital wallet GUI that is presented by the client user 160. The digital wallet GUI may use any suitable format to present information about the purchased branded digital items) (Section [0096]-[0099]);
receive a request to check out at least one digital asset of the plurality of digital assets, wherein the request comprises an electronic target location for the at least one digital asset while the at least one digital asset is checked out (e.g. In some embodiments, a request for the branded digital item is received at the branded digital item system 100. In response to receiving the request, the blockchain access module 138 is initiated by the CPU 108) (e.g. The user request includes information identifies the user and information identifying the particular digital environment(s) and/or the content provider 156) (Section [0106]-[0108]);
cause a transfer of the at least one digital asset from the electronic record to the electronic target location (e.g. If a match is made between the identity of the digital environment and/or content provider 156 indicated in the user request and the stored authorized digital environment(s) and/or authorized content providers 156, the non-fungible token information and/or the branded digital item may be accessed from the branded digital item blockchain and released for use in the digital environment) (Section [0109]-[0110]);
record recordation data associated with the transfer in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is transferred from the electronic record to the electronic target location, the recordation data comprising an indication of the electronic target location
(e.g. If a match is made between the requesting user identity and the stored authorized user identity, the non-fungible token and/or the branded digital item may be accessed from the branded digital item blockchain and released for use in the digital environment ) (Section [0106]-[0109]) and (e.g. If the user has selected one of the branded digital items 402 for purchase, information memorializing the purchase is then communicated to the branded digital item system 100. The blockchain module 136 accesses the branded digital item blockchain associated with the branded digital item 402 from the branded digital item blockchain library 150. The blockchain module 136 then accesses the associated non-fungible token information (or, in other embodiments, decrypts the branded digital item blockchain) using the associated blockchain key(s) stored in the blockchain key library 152 (which only the branded digital item system 100 has access to). An updated non-fungible token (and/or updated token information) and/or an updated branded digital item blockchain is generated, and then is added to the branded digital item blockchain which memorializes the purchase of the branded digital item 402 by the purchasing user. The information added into the branded digital item blockchain includes information identifying the user, information identifying the game (and/or the digital environments) that the branded digital item may be used in, optional information identifying the content provider, and/or the 2D and/or 3D model data of the branded digital item) (Sections [0133], and [0134]).
Although Mallett discloses storing a plurality of digital assets associated with an electronic record of a user, recording data associated with the transfer in an electronic ledger, and transferring at least one digital asset to an electronic target location in response to a request from the user, Mallett does not specifically disclose:
receive the at least one digital asset from the electronic target location;
store the at least one digital asset back in the electronic record;
store receipt of the at least one digital asset in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is stored ack in the electronic record.
However Berry, in analogous art of NFT use in target locations, discloses:
receive the at least one digital asset from the electronic target location (e.g. In other specific embodiments of the method, re-checking the authentication NFT back into the original private distributed trust computing network, includes verifying the authentication NFT being checked back-in and storing, in the deactivated state, the authentication NFT in a distributed ledger of the original private distributed trust computing network) (Section [0093]);
store the at least one digital asset back in the electronic record (e.g. In other specific embodiments of the method, re-checking the authentication NFT back into the original private distributed trust computing network, includes verifying the authentication NFT being checked back-in and storing, in the deactivated state, the authentication NFT in a distributed ledger of the original private distributed trust computing network) (Section [0093]);
store receipt of the at least one digital asset in the electronic ledger in real time when the at least one digital asset is stored ack in the electronic record (e.g. In other specific embodiments of the method, re-checking the authentication NFT back into the original private distributed trust computing network, includes verifying the authentication NFT being checked back-in and storing, in the deactivated state, the authentication NFT in a distributed ledger of the original private distributed trust computing network) (Section [0093]) and (e.g. authentication application 510 is configured to receive third input 528 that is configured to move the authentication NFT 430 from the activated state 560 to the deactivated state 560 and check-in 580 to the distributed ledger 104 of the first private distributed trust computing network 100. In those embodiments of the invention, in which the deactivated state comprises an encrypted authentication NFT, moving the authentication NFT 430 from the activated state 560 to the deactivated state 560 may comprises encrypting (e.g., key wrapping) the authentication NFT 430 with the same hash used to originally encrypt the authentication NFT. Checking-in 580 the authentication NFT 430 comprises creating a new data block/event object 104-A within the distributed ledger 104 of the first private distributed trust computing network 100) (Sections [0056] and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFT checkout process/system of Mallett to return of the NFT back to the user electronic record when it’s done being used, as taught by Berry, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the security of the NFT by securely storing it when it’s not in use (See Berry paragraph [0094]).
Per claims 2 and 10, Mallet/Berry discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Mallett further discloses:
wherein the electronic ledger comprises a blockchain ledger (e.g. A branded digital item blockchain is then generated with a ledger containing each of the instances of the non-fungible tokens. A cryptographically secured hash of the branded digital item blockchain is generated and added into the ledger of the branded digital item blockchain. Accordingly, the contents of the ledger are secured) (Section [0037]).
Per claims 3, 11, and 18, Mallet/Berry discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 above. Mallett further discloses:
identify a subset of the plurality of digital assets stored in the at least one memory for administration by a distributor (e.g. In some embodiments, the searching users may have previously indicated a preference for particular branded digital items. This preference information may be saved into the client user data 142) (Section [0144]);
identify a plurality of potential receivers for the subset of digital assets (e.g. When a previously indicated branded digital item of interest becomes available on the secondary marketplace, a notification of the availability of the branded digital item may be communicated to that particular user) (Section [0144]).
Per claims 4 and 12, Mallet/Berry discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 11 above. Mallett further discloses:
receive a sale input associated with a sale of a digital asset of the plurality of digital assets (e.g. For example, the hypothetical conceptual digital environment illustrates a sell icon 412. In response to selection of the sell icon 412 by the user, a request to sell one or more owned branded digital items is communicated to the branded digital item system 100) (Section [0140]-[0142]);
cause the digital asset to be transferred to a purchaser digital record associated with a purchaser of the sale (e.g. Once the branded digital item is purchased, the branded digital item blockchain is updated with an updated non-fungible token information and/or an updated branded digital item blockchain. The updated branded digital item blockchain reflects the new ownership of the branded digital item. Then, only the new purchasing user may use that particular branded digital item) (Section [0143]-[0145]).
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallett/Berry, as applied to claims 4, 12, and 18 above, in further view of US 20230298435 A1 (“Dalmia”).
Per claims 5 and 13, although Mallett/Berry disclose selling a digital asset and transferring the digital asset to the purchaser, Mallett/Berry do not specifically disclose:
receive funds associated with the sale;
store the funds in the plurality of digital assets for administration by the distributor.
However Dalmia, in analogous art of selling NFTs, discloses:
receive funds associated with the sale (e.g. The cross-channel application may enable traditional digital wallet and/or crypto wallet functionalities such as making payments in traditional currency and/or cryptocurrency and/or managing NFT assets) (Section [0060] and [0247]);
store the funds in the plurality of digital assets for administration by the distributor (e.g. In example embodiments, the information recorded for a transaction may include identifying information (e.g., a public key) for the providing and receiving parties, an identification of the gaming channel involved in the transaction, any smart contract actions performed as a result of the transfer (e.g., transfer of funds between a digital wallet of a purchaser and a digital wallet of a seller), or other pertinent information relating to the transaction. The transaction can be stored as a block within the blockchain in example embodiments) (section [0060] and [0247]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFT selling process/system of Mallett/Berry to include the transferring of payment funds and storing the payment funds, as taught by Dalmia, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to get paid and have access to their funds for selling their digital assets.
Per claim 19, Mallett/Berry discloses all the limitations of claim 18 above. Mallet further discloses:
receiving a sale input associated with a sale of a digital asset of the plurality of digital assets (e.g. For example, the hypothetical conceptual digital environment illustrates a sell icon 412. In response to selection of the sell icon 412 by the user, a request to sell one or more owned branded digital items is communicated to the branded digital item system 100) (Section [0140]-[0142]);
causing the digital asset to be transferred to a purchaser digital record associated with a purchaser of the sale (e.g. Once the branded digital item is purchased, the branded digital item blockchain is updated with an updated non-fungible token information and/or an updated branded digital item blockchain. The updated branded digital item blockchain reflects the new ownership of the branded digital item. Then, only the new purchasing user may use that particular branded digital item) (Section [0143]-[0145]).
Although Mallett/Berry disclose selling a digital asset and transferring the digital asset to the purchaser, Mallett/Berry do not specifically disclose:
receiving funds associated with the sale;
storing the funds in the plurality of digital assets for administration by the distributor.
However Dalmia, in analogous art of selling NFTs, discloses:
receiving funds associated with the sale (e.g. The cross-channel application may enable traditional digital wallet and/or crypto wallet functionalities such as making payments in traditional currency and/or cryptocurrency and/or managing NFT assets) (Section [0060] and [0247]);
storing the funds in the plurality of digital assets for administration by the distributor (e.g. In example embodiments, the information recorded for a transaction may include identifying information (e.g., a public key) for the providing and receiving parties, an identification of the gaming channel involved in the transaction, any smart contract actions performed as a result of the transfer (e.g., transfer of funds between a digital wallet of a purchaser and a digital wallet of a seller), or other pertinent information relating to the transaction. The transaction can be stored as a block within the blockchain in example embodiments) (section [0060] and [0247]).
The motivation to combine Dalmia with Mallett/Berry is disclosed above with respect to claims 5 and 13.
Claims 6-8, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallett/Berry, as applied to claims 3, 12, and 18 above, in further view of US 20230267452 A1 (“Isogawa”).
Per claims 6 and 14, although Mallett/Berry disclose identifying a subset of digital assets and identifying potential receivers for the subset of digital assets, Mallett/Berry do not specifically disclose:
cause display of a plurality of selectors, wherein each selector is associated with at least one digital asset of the subset of digital assets;
cause display of a plurality of display areas, wherein each display area is associated with at least one potential receiver of the plurality of potential receivers.
However Isogawa, in analogous art of transferring digital assets, discloses:
cause display of a plurality of selectors, wherein each selector is associated with at least one digital asset of the subset of digital assets (e.g. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0031] and [0038]);
cause display of a plurality of display areas, wherein each display area is associated with at least one potential receiver of the plurality of potential receivers (e.g. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0031] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the digital asset transfer system of Mallett/Berry to include a user interface that displays a plurality of digital assets that can be assigned to potential receivers, as taught by Isogawa, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the security of the digital assets by allowing the user to automatically transfer the digital assets to other wallets if a certain event takes place.
Per claims 7 and 15, Mallet/Berry/Isogawa discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 14 above. Isogawa further discloses:
receive an input associated with a selector of the plurality of selectors and a receiver of the plurality of potential receivers (e.g. At step 202, the digital asset transfer system 100 may receive, by a user interface, configuration parameters comprising an indication of a user wallet address and an indication of a beneficiary wallet address) (Section [0041]);
cause display of the selector in the display area associated with the receiver (e.g. Based on corresponding wallet address(es) of the connected wallet(s), the digital asset transfer system 100 may provide and/or display one or more notifications at the user interface. If the input wallet address(es) do not correspond to beneficiary and/or backup wallet address(es) included in a smart contract generated by the digital asset transfer system 100, the user interface may provide an indication that the input wallet address(es) are not configured as beneficiary and/or backup wallet address(es), such that individual is not a beneficiary corresponding to the user or the user themself.) (Section [0031], [0036], and [0041]).
Per claims 8 and 16, Mallet/Berry/Isogawa discloses all the limitations of claims 7 and 15 above. Isogawa further discloses:
cause the at least one digital asset associated with the selector to be transferred to a digital record associated with the receiver (e.g. In some embodiments, the smart contract included in the blockchain network may be configured to automatically transfer digital assets in the event of a security breach corresponding to a user of the digital asset transfer system 100. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0038] and [0042]).
Per claim 20, although Mallett/Berry disclose identifying a subset of digital assets and identifying potential receivers for the subset of digital assets, Mallett/Berry do not specifically disclose:
causing display of a plurality of selectors, wherein each selector is associated with at least one digital asset of the subset of digital assets;
causing display of a plurality of display areas, wherein each display area is associated with at least one potential receiver of the plurality of potential receivers;
receiving an input associated with a selector of the plurality of selectors and a receiver of the plurality of potential receivers;
causing display of the selector in the display area associated with the receiver;
causing the at least one digital asset associated with the selector to be transferred to a digital record associated with the receiver.
However Isogawa, in analogous art of transferring digital assets, discloses:
causing display of a plurality of selectors, wherein each selector is associated with at least one digital asset of the subset of digital assets (e.g. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0031] and [0038]);
causing display of a plurality of display areas, wherein each display area is associated with at least one potential receiver of the plurality of potential receivers (e.g. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0031] and [0038]);
receiving an input associated with a selector of the plurality of selectors and a receiver of the plurality of potential receivers (e.g. At step 202, the digital asset transfer system 100 may receive, by a user interface, configuration parameters comprising an indication of a user wallet address and an indication of a beneficiary wallet address) (Section [0041]);
causing display of the selector in the display area associated with the receiver (e.g. Based on corresponding wallet address(es) of the connected wallet(s), the digital asset transfer system 100 may provide and/or display one or more notifications at the user interface. If the input wallet address(es) do not correspond to beneficiary and/or backup wallet address(es) included in a smart contract generated by the digital asset transfer system 100, the user interface may provide an indication that the input wallet address(es) are not configured as beneficiary and/or backup wallet address(es), such that individual is not a beneficiary corresponding to the user or the user themself.) (Section [0031], [0036], and [0041]);
causing the at least one digital asset associated with the selector to be transferred to a digital record associated with the receiver (e.g. In some embodiments, the smart contract included in the blockchain network may be configured to automatically transfer digital assets in the event of a security breach corresponding to a user of the digital asset transfer system 100. A user may configure the transfer of selected digital assets to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets in the event of the security breach using the user interface) (Section [0038] and [0042]).
The motivation to combine Isogawa with Mallett/Berry is disclosed above with respect to claims 6 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P SAX whose telephone number is (571) 272-2935. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/TS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698