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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 11, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 11, 14-16, and 18. Applicant has cancelled claims 6, 7, 10, and 17. Claims 19 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-16, 18 and 20-22 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 1-5, 8-9, 11-16, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 20-21) a system (claims 14-16, 18 and 22). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method, the method comprising: obtaining attribute information of a tangible object;
obtaining appraisal information indicating an appraisal of the tangible object, wherein the tangible object is a trading card;
sending the appraisal information and the attribute information to an external storage system outside a blockchain network; and
broadcasting a creation request to the blockchain network to create a non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information on a blockchain, wherein the blockchain network is composed of a plurality of nodes each having the blockchain, the non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information is created on the blockchain after the creation request is broadcasted to the blockchain network, and
the appraisal information and the attribute information is recorded as metadata for the non-fungible token, and
the method further comprising:
obtaining token identification information to identify the non-fungible token through a first device, wherein the first device is communicatively connected to the blockchain network and associated with a first user;
sending the token identification information from the first device to the blockchain network;
obtaining information indicating an owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information, based on the token identification information;
sending the information indicating the owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information to the first device; and
displaying the information indicating the owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information on the first device.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of obtain tangible object information to generate a token and obtaining and sending token identification to display information. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., processing asset data).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional elements of a first device, a computer, a blockchain network, a non-fungible token and a plurality of nodes. Independent claim 14 recite the additional elements of an information processing system, a blockchain network, a plurality of nodes, an appraiser device and a non-fungible token. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component (e.g., an information processing system, a plurality of nodes and an appraiser device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional elements: the blockchain network and NFTs amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a first device, a computer, an information processing system, a blockchain network, a plurality of nodes, an appraiser device and a non-fungible token in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/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 element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a first device, a computer, an information processing system, a plurality of nodes and an appraiser device) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-18 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that an image is received as an input, the evaluation index and the attribute information is received based on the image and this information is recorded in the token. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8-9 further refine the abstract idea by describing the appraisal information (e.g., includes grade of the tangible object that is a state of preservation) and this is recorded. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-13, 16, 18 and 21 further refine the abstract idea by broadcasting a change of ownership, describing the token and indicating that a wallet address is generated. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 20 and 22 further refine the abstract idea by describing the tangible object (e.g., is a protective case and a two-dimensional code is provided) wherein the information processing system is configured to obtain the token identification information by capturing an image of the two-dimensional code using an imaging unit of the first device. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaney (US 2021/0406920 A1), “McLaney” in view of Fortuna et al (US 2024/0104552 A1), “Fortuna”, in view of “Nelson” (US 2023/0126016 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14: McLaney discloses:
Claim 1: An information processing method, the method comprising:
Claim 14: An information processing system comprising:
a blockchain network (See at least McLaney, [0039] a blockchain network)
an appraiser device that is communicably connected to the blockchain network and associated with an appraiser that appraises a tangible object, (See at least McLaney, Fig. 2B; [0033]; [0037]) wherein the information processing system is configured to:
obtaining attribute information of a tangible object; (See at least McLaney, Fig. 4D; [0010]; [0048]; attribute information of a tangible object (i.e., item’s description of the asset) is obtained.)
obtaining appraisal information indicating an appraisal of the tangible object; (See at least McLaney, Abs., Fig. 4A; [0012]; [0017]; [0040]; appraisal information (i.e., appraisal) of the tangible object (i.e., an asset) is obtained.)
broadcasting a creation request to the blockchain network to create a non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information on a blockchain, wherein the blockchain network is composed of a plurality of nodes each having the blockchain, the non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information is created on the blockchain after the creation request is broadcasted to the blockchain network, and (See at least McLaney, [0013]; [0081]; [0040]; [0046-0047]; claim 1 a creation request to a blockchain network to create a non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information on a blockchain (e.g., appraisal system allows executing a transition on a blockchain network to record an updated appraisal and token associated with the appraisal is generated) is broadcasted, the non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information (i.e., recordation of the updated appraisal on the blockchain) is created on the blockchain (i.e., NFT generation, recordation of the updated appraisal on the blockchain) after the creation request (i.e., request) is broadcasted to the blockchain network (i.e., blockchain communication network).)
the appraisal information and the attribute information is recorded as metadata for the non-fungible token. (See at least McLaney, [0040]; [0072] (e.g., a non-fungible token is generated associated with asset and updated appraisal; The appraisal description and metadata are extracted via OCR to prepare the updated appraisal.).
McLaney disclose the updated appraisal may be configured as self-authenticating and recorded in a transaction on a blockchain. (See at least McLaney, Abs.). However, McLaney does not explicitly disclose the blockchain composed of a plurality of nodes each having a blockchain.
Fortuna, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention the blockchain composed of a plurality of nodes each having a blockchain. (See at least Fortuna, [0007] the public blockchain to hold copies of blocks or nodes in the network as well as to perform verification of transactions or records.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the blockchain having nodes in Fortuna for the blockchain in McLaney. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The combination of McLaney and Fortuna does not explicitly disclose, however Nelson teaches; wherein the tangible object is a trading card; sending the appraisal information and the attribute information to an external storage system outside a blockchain network; (See at least Nelson, [0009]; [0045]; Nelson disclose sending appraisal information and the attribute information (i.e., information about the collectible or metadata regarding the NFT) to an external storage system outside a blockchain network (i.e., NFT database).)
the method further comprising:
obtaining token identification information to identify the non-fungible token through a first device, wherein the first device is communicatively connected to the blockchain network and associated with a first user; (See at least Nelson, [0043-0044]; Fig. 3; token identification to identify the non-fungible token through a first device (i.e., the unique identifier of the collectible) is obtained (i.e., retrieved) wherein the first device (i.e., user computer system) is communicatively connected to the blockchain network and associated with a first user (e.g., see Fig. 3 (a blockchain network 310, and user computer systems 200 and 352-356).)
sending the token identification information from the first device to the blockchain network; (See at least Nelson, Fig. 3; [0050]; [0052]; the token identification information (i.e., the unique identifier) is sent to the blockchain network (i.e., NFT token system).) Note that the blockchain network comprises the NFT token system.
obtaining information indicating an owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information, based on the token identification information; (See at least Nelson, [0006]; [0054]; information indicating an owner of the non-fungible token (i.e., known owner of the card), the appraisal information (i.e., PSA grade) and attribute information (e.g., any imperfections the card may have) is obtained, based on the token identification information (i.e., barcode unique identifier).)
sending the information indicating the owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information to the first device; and (See at least Nelson, [0006]; [0011]; [0054]; [0049]; where the information indicating the owner of the non-fungible token (i.e., list of owners of the NFTs) the appraisal information and the attribute information (i.e., appraisal information) is sent to the first device (i.e., metadata transmitted from the NFC device 140a to an app executing on the user computer system 200).)
displaying the information indicating the owner of the non-fungible token, the appraisal information, and the attribute information on the first device. (See at least Nelson, [0049]; The user computer system 200 may have a user interface 210 configured to display content, such as metadata transmitted from the NFC device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Nelson’s teachings in order to increase convenience and frequency of trading.
Applicant is reminded that the portion which recites “… to create a non-fungible token associated with the attribute information and the appraisal information on a blockchain…” in intended use/result language. For example, applicant fails to positively recite the steps of creating a non-fungible token.
Furthermore, the phrase “to identify the non-fungible token through a first device…” is intended-use language because it indicated the intended use of obtaining token identification information.
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Regarding claims 2 and 15: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 1 and system of claim 14. The combination further disclose:
obtaining evaluation index information indicating one or more evaluation indexes of the tangible object; and (See at least McLaney, Fig. 4C; valuator is assigned the submission and they update value.)
Nelson further disclose sending the evaluation index information to the external storage system outside the blockchain network, wherein the evaluation index information is recorded as metadata for the non-fungible token. (See at least Nelson, [0009]; [0011]; [0026]; [0045] where the evaluation index information (e.g., PSA value or assigned grade) is sent to and recorded in an external storage system outside the blockchain network (i.e., NFT database) as metadata for the non-fungible token (e.g., update the NFT database with metadata regarding the NFT generation).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Nelson’s teachings in order to increase convenience and frequency of trading.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 2. The combination further disclose:
obtaining image data showing the tangible object, and wherein the obtaining the evaluation index information comprises obtaining the evaluation index information based on the obtained image data. (See at least McLaney, Abs.; [0010-0012]; [0039-0040]; image data showing the tangible object (i.e., image capture of the asset) is obtained, and wherein the obtaining the evaluation index information comprises obtaining the evaluation index information based on the obtained image data (i.e., The system uses OCR to convert the existing appraisal into text to allow the system to process the existing description and determine a current value.)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 3. The combination further disclose: wherein the obtaining the attribute information comprises obtaining the attribute information based on the obtained image data. (See at least McLaney, [0048] According to an embodiment of FIG. 4D, an existing appraisal of an asset is submitted with image capture. The system requests image capture of the asset, as well as video capture. The system uses OCR to convert the existing appraisal into text to allow the system to process the existing description and determine a current value.)
Regarding claim 5: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 2. The combination further disclose: wherein the obtaining the attribute information comprises obtaining the attribute information in response to an input operation by an operator, and the obtaining the evaluation index information comprises obtaining the evaluation index information in response to the input operation. (See at least McLaney, Abs.; [0010]; [0013]; [0017]; [0040] According to an embodiment, an existing appraisal of an asset is submitted with image capture. The system uses OCR to convert the existing appraisal into text to allow the system to process the existing description and determine a current value.)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 2. The combination further disclose: wherein the evaluation index information indicates one or more evaluation indexes indicating a state of preservation of the tangible object and one or more evaluation indexes indicating an initial state of the tangible object. (See at least McLaney, [0087] The user device 150 may upload the video story and edit the story of the asset for purposes of documenting its historical importance, not just for valuation purposes, but for historical preservation purposes.
Regarding claim 11: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose broadcasting a change request to the blockchain network to change the owner of the non-fungible token from an appraiser who requested creation of the non-fungible token to the first user.
Fortuna, on the other hand teaches broadcasting a change request to the blockchain network to change the owner of the non-fungible token from an appraiser who requested creation of the non-fungible token to the first user. (See at least Fortuna, [0021]; [0027]; transferring the at least one NFT from the house wallet to a digital wallet controlled by the user when the API response indicates a successful minting event.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Fortuna’s teachings in order to provide direct, verifiable, and secure transfer of unique asset control on the blockchain.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-fungible token has a plurality of non-fungible tokens, each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens is associated with the appraisal information and the attribute information, and each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens represents a co-ownership interest in the tangible object. the blockchain to a controlled program digital wallet owned by a seller of the tangible item.)
Fortuna, on the other hand teaches wherein the non-fungible token has a plurality of non-fungible tokens, each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens is associated with the appraisal information and the attribute information, and each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens represents a co-ownership interest in the tangible object, (See at least Fortuna, [0027-0028] minting at least one additional NFT to the blockchain representing a digital title to the tangible item; minting at least a second additional NFT to the blockchain with data about the tangible item, including at least one of a description of the tangible item, an appraisal of the tangible item, a certificate of authenticity for the tangible item, and a physical location of the tangible item; and transferring all of the NFTs minted to the blockchain to a controlled program digital wallet owned by a seller of the tangible item.)
The information processing method further comprising:
broadcasting a change request to the blockchain network to change owners of the plurality of non-fungible tokens from an appraiser who requested creation of the plurality of non-fungible tokens to a plurality of users who have a co-ownership of the tangible object. (See at least Fortuna [0027] transferring the NFTs from the controlled program digital wallet to a digital wallet owned by the purchaser.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Fortuna’s teachings in order to provide direct, verifiable, and secure transfer of unique asset control on the blockchain.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 1. The combination further disclose generating a wallet address for an appraiser who requested creation of the non-fungible token, based on a public key associated with a public digital certificate, wherein the public digital certificate is associated with the appraiser. (See at least Fortuna, [0024] In yet another aspect, an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may provide a method of securing a blockchain key comprising: minting a digital wallet with a minter; creating a digital wallet key; encrypting a first part of the digital wallet key with a first cipher; encrypting a second part of the digital wallet key with a second cipher; storing the first part of the digital wallet key in a minter database on a network separate from the minter.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Fortuna’s teachings in order to provide direct, verifiable, and secure transfer of unique asset control on the blockchain.
Regarding claim 16: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing system according to claim 14. The combination further disclose wherein the information processing system is further configured to:
broadcast a change request to the blockchain network to change the owner of the nonfungible
token from the appraiser to the first user. (See at least Fortuna; [0021]; transferring the at least one NFT from the house wallet to a digital wallet controlled by the user when the API response indicates a successful minting event.)
record information indicating that the owner of the non-fungible token is the first user on the blockchain in response to the change request. (See at least Fortuna, [0028] mint a second digital deed to the blockchain to certify the second purchase; and transfer the NFTs from the digital wallet owned by the original purchaser to a digital wallet owned by the second purchaser.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Fortuna’s teachings in order to provide direct, verifiable, and secure transfer of unique asset control on the blockchain.
Regarding claims 18 and 21: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the method of claim 1 and the information processing system according to claim 14. The combination further disclose wherein: the information processing system is further configured to:
broadcast a change request from the first device to the blockchain network to change the owner of the non-fungible token from the first user to a second user; and (See at least Fortuna [0027] transferring the NFTs from the controlled program digital wallet to a digital wallet owned by the purchaser.)
record information indicating that the owner of the non-fungible token is the second user on the blockchain in response to the change request. (See at least Fortuna, [0028] mint a second digital deed to the blockchain to certify the second purchase; and transfer the NFTs from the digital wallet owned by the original purchaser to a digital wallet owned by the second purchaser.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Fortuna’s teachings in order to provide direct, verifiable, and secure transfer of unique asset control on the blockchain.
Regarding claims 20 and 22: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 14. The combination further disclose; wherein the tangible object is housed in a protective case (See at least Nelson, [0040]; where the tangible object (i.e., collectible 120) is housed in a protective case (i.e., sealed or secured within a case 130).)
wherein a two-dimensional code is provided on the protective case, and (See at least Nelson, [0043]; where a two-dimensional code (i.e., QR code) is provided on the protective case (i.e., included in the case 130).)
wherein the obtaining the token identification information comprises obtaining the token
identification information by capturing an image of the two-dimensional code using an imaging unit of the first device. (See at least Nelson, [0045]; where the obtaining the token identification information comprises obtaining the token identification information by capturing an image of the two-dimensional code (i.e., read the machine readable identifier 115… via a camera) using an imaging unit of the first device (i.e., image camera of the user computer system).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Nelson’s teachings in order to increase convenience and frequency of trading.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kass et al. (US 2022/0374946 A1), “Kass”.
Regarding claim 8: The combination of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson disclose the information processing method according to claim 8. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the appraisal information includes grade information indicating a grade of the tangible object.
Kass, on the other hand teaches wherein the appraisal information includes grade information indicating a grade of the tangible object. (See at least Kass, [0187] In one aspect, the computerized system 100 uses a 1,000 point grading system and converts data collected by image processing to a numeric score and a standardized grade.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Kass’s teachings in order to provides an opportunity for collectible 116 owners to differentiate their graded collectibles 116 by score and/or grade report.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues. Accordingly, the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill the art would understand that the features of amended claims 1 and 14 provide a technical improvement in the technical field of preventing forgery of appraisal evaluations of trading cards (Remarks, pp. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 14, each considered as a whole, integrate any judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) into a practical application (Remarks, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to make the determination that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application the additional element(s) are analyzed. Here, the additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component (e.g., an information processing system, a plurality of nodes and an appraiser device). Furthermore, the additional elements: the blockchain network and NFTs amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant asserts that McLaney and Fortuna fail to disclose or suggest at least features 2-6 and claim 17. (Remarks, pp. 10-11). Examiner agrees. However, upon further consideration of the newly introduced language, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McLaney, Fortuna and Nelson Examiner notes these features are disclosed by “Nelson”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200184162 A1 (Levy): The “NFC tag 110” may also be replaced or supplemented with an optical glyph, such as a barcode or a quick response (QR) code, which may be scanned optically via one or more camera(s) of the user device 120. This optical glyph may encode any of the information discussed with respect to the NFC tag 110. [0053]
US 20230092012 A1 (Matthews): FIG. 8 depicts an example 800 of an NFT collection listing which includes both an NFT and an earned item. The illustrated example 800 includes an NFT collection listing 802 which lists both the “Junior Trading Card” NFT 504 and the earned item 606 corresponding to the “Junior Shoes” NFT which was conferred to the user account for holding the NFT 504. The listing platform 134 can output the NFT collection listing 802, such as by publishing the NFT collection listing 802 to one or more client devices, e.g., associated with user accounts of the service provider system 104 or that navigate to user interfaces of the service provider system 104. The listing platform 134 may expose the NFT collection listing 802 to a plurality of client devices, such that users navigating to the listing or searching for listings can view the NFT collection listing 802. In this example, the NET collection listing 802 is depicted as being displayed by a web application (e.g., the application 148) via a user interface at the client device 108. The client device 108 may correspond to a different device than the client device 106 which was utilized to generate the NET collection listing 802. [0109]
US 20220345316 A1 (Testagrossa): Techniques for cryptographic authentication of a physical asset are disclosed, including: operating a trusted application, provided by a trusted entity, on a computing device equipped with an NFC reader to: (a) obtain a single-use authentication link from a cryptographically-secure NFC chip attached to a physical asset; (b) obtain a metadata pointer and a hash digest from the single-use authentication link; (c) obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature; (d) obtain a public authentication key associated with the trusted entity; and (e) authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset. Abs.
US 20220309491 A1 (Shapiro): For example, hardware security modules (HSMs) with pre-programmed key pairs as physical tags may be used. When a purchaser wants to couple digital ownership of an NFT with ownership of a physical piece embodying a creative work, the purchaser may scan the physical tag to obtain its public key and that key may then be encoded in the blockchain that the NFT resides on, e.g., by updating the NFT metadata to include the public key of the physical tag. Only one of each tag may exist, and the private keys are very difficult to extract without sophisticated attacks. The tags would be similar in nature to multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens. In some embodiments, the tag may also have the certificate of authenticity included.
US 20230070389 A1 (MADHUSUDHAN): The tag reader can be a QR code scanner or Near-field Communication (NFC) reader. The system matches the first unique identity with the identifier to check the authenticity of the NFT asset and validates the physical asset based on matching the first unique identity with the identifier. Abs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights