Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 13, and 1 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that the combination of Roffey and Sugawara does not teach the amended limitations, specifically, “displaying, via a user interface of the blockchain address application, a first indication of the NFT and a second indication that the NFT is owned by a first blockchain address associated with the blockchain address application,” where “the first indication and the second indication are displayed prior to update, in accordance with verification of an on-chain transfer of the NFT by the blockchain network, of an immutable ledger to reflect ownership of the NFT by the first blockchain address” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (a process, an apparatus, and an article of manufacture).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claim 1 recites: receiving, at a blockchain address application, information indicating that a device supporting the blockchain address application accesses a first link associated with the blockchain address application, wherein the information indicates a non-fungible token (NFT); displaying, via a user interface of the blockchain address application, a first indication of the NFT and a second indication that the NFT is owned by a first blockchain address associated with the blockchain address application, wherein the first indication and the second indication are displayed prior to update, in accordance with verification of an on-chain transfer of the NFT by a blockchain network, of an immutable ledger to reflect ownership of the NFT by the first blockchain address; initiating, via the blockchain address application after receiving the information, execution of the on-chain transfer of the NFT from a second blockchain address associated with an NFT collection comprising the NFT to the first blockchain address associated with the blockchain address application; and displaying, via the user interface of the blockchain address application, the first indication of the NFT and a status associated with the on-chain transfer, wherein the status is pending until confirmation of the on-chain transfer via the blockchain network.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of receiving information pertaining to an account and providing/displaying information associated with the account, which falls under methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principal or practice (e.g., account management)).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “blockchain address application,” “NFT,” “user interface,” “blockchain network,” “apparatus comprising: one or more memories and processors,” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” generally “apply” the concept of receiving information pertaining to an account and providing/displaying information associated with the account to a technological environment (i.e., blockchain). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims focus on the abstract idea and not on an improvement to technology or technical field. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a blockchain address application, NFT, user interface, blockchain network, apparatus comprising: one or more memories and processors, and non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of receiving information pertaining to an account and providing/displaying information associated with the account. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claims 2 and 14 which claims “wherein displaying the NFT after the confirmation of the on-chain transfer comprises: displaying the NFT absent of the status, wherein the status is complete after the confirmation of the on-chain transfer via the blockchain network” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claims 3 and 15 which claims “wherein initiating the execution of the on-chain transfer comprises: transmitting an application programming interface (API) call to a service associated with the second blockchain address, wherein the API call results in execution of the on-chain transfer” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claims 4 and 16 which claims “receiving, in response to the API call, an API response that results in display of the first indication, the second indication, or both via the user interface” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claims 5 and 18 which claims “wherein the blockchain address application initiates execution of the on-chain transfer absent a digital signature from the first blockchain address” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 6 which claims “wherein the NFT collection comprising the NFT is minted to the second blockchain address prior to the execution of the on-chain transfer of the NFT from the second blockchain address to the first blockchain address” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 8 which claims “wherein the first link is accessible to the device via a quick response (QR) code” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 9 which claims “wherein the on-chain transfer is executed to transfer the NFT to the first blockchain address without requiring a second transfer from the first blockchain address” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 10 which claims “wherein the NFT is restricted from being transferred to another blockchain address” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 11 which claims “wherein the second blockchain address is associated with a self-executing program supported by the blockchain network” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to the dependent claim 12 which claims “receiving, at the blockchain address application, second information indicating that the device supporting the blockchain address application accesses a second link associated with the blockchain address application, wherein the information is indicative of a second NFT, and wherein the access to the second link results in display of the second NFT via the user interface of the blockchain address application and transfer of the second NFT to the first blockchain address” which merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 20230259936 to Roffey teaches a system and method of transacting a prepaid non-fungible token with an electronic mobile device that is used to electronically interface with a code, such as a QR code, bar code, RF signal or NFC signal, representing a prepaid product. The codes of multiple prepaid non-fungible tokens are grouped together on a single structure or in a single computer displayed in a shopping area. The electronic mobile device subsequently electronically interfaces with a point of sale device after electronically interfacing with said code to provide prepaid non-fungible token information. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20240257114 to Sugawara teaches an information processing apparatus includes one or more memories and one or more processors. The one or more memories and the one or more processors are configured to store an address, execute a predetermined application installed on the information processing apparatus, determine whether an address of a transmission destination of a non-fungible token (NFT) that is included in transaction data of the NFT corresponding to the predetermined application installed on the information processing apparatus is identical to the stored address, and restrict the predetermined application from being executed in a case where the address of the transmission destination is not identical to the stored address. In addition, United States Patent Application No. US 20230169492 to Khalfan teaches systems and methods to effectuate real-world outcomes based on digital assets of users are disclosed. Exemplary implementations may: receive an authentication request including first authentication information from a first user; determine whether the first authentication information is valid by comparing the first authentication information and first access information; determine, responsive to determination that the first authentication information is valid, one or more of the digital assets indicated by a first digital wallet as owned by the first user; determine one or more real-world experiences of the first user; update the experience information correlated with the one or more digital assets owned by the first user as indicated by the first digital wallet in electronic storage based on the one or more real-world experiences; and effectuate real-world outcomes based on the experience information correlated with the one or more digital assets that are owned by the first user. In addition, United States Patent Application No. US 20240131436 to Qin teaches a system, marketplace, and method for developers to develop and provide games and/or non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to users for use across multiple gaming environments is provided. The system provides tools enabling the developers to implement games and/or NFTs that are compatible with multiple gaming environments standards. The system also converts information pertaining to the NFTs from non-standardized formats to standardized formats as required by the different gaming environments. The system also provides a marketplace for developers to showcase their games and/or NFTs to potential users. The system also links new and/or existing user accounts from various games with a system account such that the users may only require use of the system account across all of the games in the marketplace. In addition, United States Patent Application No. US 20230419276 to Agarwal teaches systems and methods are provided for facilitating a cryptographic digital asset transaction via natural language commands using a conversation or chat interface associated with a digital wallet application. The digital wallet owner may exchange commands with an assistant user. The assistant user may comprise an automated software agent. The digital wallet owner may perform transactions with digital assets comprising fungible token (NFT) which are governed by a smart contract on a blockchain and are configured to represent first user's guaranteed mortgage preapproval. The NFT stores borrower information, property information, and seller information. The transaction may cause the smart contract associated with the NFT being updating on the blockchain in accordance with the borrowers' instructions.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, displaying, via a user interface of the blockchain address application, a first indication of the NFT and a second indication that the NFT is owned by a first blockchain address associated with the blockchain address application, wherein the first indication and the second indication are displayed prior to update, in accordance with verification of an on-chain transfer of the NFT by a blockchain network, of an immutable ledger to reflect ownership of the NFT by the first blockchain address; initiating, via the blockchain address application after receiving the information, execution of the on-chain transfer of the NFT from a second blockchain address associated with an NFT collection comprising the NFT to the first blockchain address associated with the blockchain address application; and displaying, via the user interface of the blockchain address application, the first indication of the NFT and a status associated with the on-chain transfer, wherein the status is pending until confirmation of the on-chain transfer via the blockchain network.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 14-16 are dependent on claim 13 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 17 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights