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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-30 are pending, claims 1, 11 and 21 have been amended, and claims 1-30 are rejected as follows.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-10 are a method, claims 11-20 are a system, and claims 21-30 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 11 and 21, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A computer-implemented method implemented via one or more processors of one or more servers, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of one or more selections defining a plurality of items to be offered in an online session, the indication being received via a first client computing device associated with a host user of the online session;
defining one or more bundles for the selected plurality of items, each of the one or more bundles defining a respective mutually exclusive subset of the plurality of items, and the one or more bundles collectively corresponding to the selected plurality of items;
transmitting first communications to each of a second plurality of client computing devices in the online session, the first communications indicating at least a first bundle among the one or more bundles, and the first communications causing each of the second plurality of client computing devices to substantially in real-time display information describing the first bundle without identifying the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle; and
upon a conclusion of an offering of the first bundle in the online session, transmitting second communications to each of the second plurality of client computing devices in the online session, the second communications causing each of the second plurality of client computing devices to substantially in real-time display further information identifying the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for defining bundles of items based on received items to be offered in a session, sending the communications to another user indicating the bundle for offer without detailing the specific items within the bundle, and after the offers of the bundle, displaying the details of the items within the bundle. Further, in [0052-53] of the specification, the items are offered for sale or by auction to the other users. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method implemented via one or more processors of one or more servers, the method comprising: (claim 1)
A computing system comprising one or more servers, the one or more servers comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: (claim 11)
One or more computer readable media storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via one or more processors of one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to: (claim 21)
an online session,
via a first client computing device
client computing devices to substantially in real-time display […]
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f). It is further noted that the limitation of “client computing devices to substantially in real-time display […]” is also found to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 11, and 21 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 21 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the plurality of items comprises a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The additional element of NFT is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites based upon receiving the indication of the one or more selections of the plurality of NFTs, causing the plurality of NFTs to be transferred from a digital wallet of the host user to an intermediary digital wallet; and upon a conclusion of the offering of the first bundle, causing the first bundle of NFTs to be transferred from the intermediary digital wallet to a digital wallet of a guest user to whom the first bundle of NFTs were awarded in the offering of the first bundle. The additional element of NFT is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the first communications indicating the first bundle include information describing the one or more items in the first bundle but do not identify the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the second communications identify the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: subsequent to transmitting the second communications, transmitting third communications to each of the second plurality of client computing devices, the second communications indicating a second bundle among the one or more bundles. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the transmitting of the first communications is performed responsive to receiving an identification of the first bundle from the first client computing device associated with the host of the online session. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the second communications cause each of the second plurality of client computing devices in the online session to display an animation revealing the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the second plurality of client computing devices includes the first client computing device. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the computing devices is at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites determining one or more price values for each of the one or more bundles, based upon previous sale values associated with the corresponding subsets of items in the one or more bundles, wherein the first communications further indicate the one or more price values for the first bundle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 12-19 and 22-30 recite parallel claim language and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above. For these reasons, claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NFTIFY (“Understanding Mystery Box NFT: The Complete Guide”) in view of Shulman (US 20230419306).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21, NFTIFY discloses:
A computer-implemented method […], the method comprising: (claim 1)
receiving an indication of one or more selections defining a plurality of items to be offered in an online session, the indication being received […] associated with a host user of the online session (Step 1: In NFTify Admin Panel, go to NFT > NFT Box > click on Create Box);
defining one or more bundles for the selected plurality of items, each of the one or more bundles defining a respective mutually exclusive subset of the plurality of items, and the one or more bundles collectively corresponding to the selected plurality of items; (Step 3: Add the Series Content for this mystery box- as shown, the user can add content to the box with the total number of items in the box displayed)
transmitting first communications (listings in an NFT marketplace-Similarly to how you buy NFTs, you can find mystery boxes on aggregated NFT marketplaces (e.g., OpenSea, Rarible, Binance NFT), game NFT Marketplace, or self-owned NFT marketplaces (e.g., NFTify-powered NFT marketplaces) in the online session, the first communications indicating at least a first bundle among the one or more bundles, and the first communications causing each of the second plurality of client computing devices to substantially in real-time display information (Shown in NFT box event, the NFT mystery box is live on a marketplace- the examiner interprets the live event for the box on a marketplace as substantially in real time display information as that is the characteristic of a live event in a marketplace) describing the first bundle without identifying the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle; and (shown in the "Box Event" Interface, the listing of the mystery box without identifying the items in the box)
upon a conclusion of an offering of the first bundle in the online session, transmitting second communications […] in the online session, the second communications causing each of the second plurality […] to substantially in real-time display further information identifying the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. ("The mystery box was airdropped last February, among token holders of the CloneX project tokens and other RTFKT collections. It was only until a few months later that holders of MNLTH (pronounced Monolith) mystery boxes were allowed to open their boxes and reveal the content inside. From user reports, it looks like that inside these mystery boxes was a pair of RTFKT x Nike Dunk Genesis CRYPTOKICKS, a Skin Vial digital item needed to modify the NFT and free MNLTH mint passes.") The examiner interprets the mystery box airdropped in February to a plurality of holder as substantially in real-time display further information to a group of end users.
While NFTIFY discloses the process of creating a mystery box of NFTs, listing and selling the mystery box on a marketplace, the reference does not expressly disclose:
A computer-implemented method implemented via one or more processors of one or more servers, the method comprising: (claim 1)
A computing system comprising one or more servers, the one or more servers comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: (claim 11)
One or more computer readable media storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via one or more processors of one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to: (claim 12)
via a first client computing device
to each of a second plurality of client computing devices
However Shulman teaches:
A computer-implemented method implemented via one or more processors of one or more servers, the method comprising: (claim 1) [0051] One or more non-transitory computer-readable media, such as the main memories of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, can store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, such as the processors of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, cause a system to execute methods in accordance with the steps
A computing system comprising one or more servers, the one or more servers comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: (claim 11) [0051] One or more non-transitory computer-readable media, such as the main memories of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, can store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, such as the processors of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, cause a system to execute methods in accordance with the steps
One or more computer readable media storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via one or more processors of one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to: (claim 12) [0051] One or more non-transitory computer-readable media, such as the main memories of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, can store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, such as the processors of the aforementioned one or more servers as represented by server 510, cause a system to execute methods in accordance with the steps
via a first client computing device; to each of a second plurality of client computing devices [0033] The steps of the methods for managing NFTs can be executed by various devices held by an issuer, owner, or issuance administrator. The steps could be conducted by an issuer device with a network connection to a portal offered by the administrator for designing a visual representation of an NFT. The steps could also be conducted by an owner device operated by a user who owns the NFT and is attempting to showcase their collection or allow a verifier to verify their NFT ownership (i.e., an owner). In specific implementations, the owner device can be a smartphone wallet and include a mobile smartphone wallet application and a network connection. The owner device can use the network connection to receive a bundle that includes data representing the NFT owner identifier, or other data associated with the NFT, and can use the wallet application to store the bundle as a card or electronic card in the wallet application. The bundle can be distributed and received over a network connection using a web user interface provided by the administrator, by delivering the bundle via an application programming interface on an application administrated by the issuance administrator on an owner device, or by sending the bundle to an owner device in an email or other electronic communication where the bundle can be downloaded and saved to the device. The bundle could then be opened using a wallet application such that the NFT data was safeguarded by and accessible from the wallet application. In specific implementations, the owner device can do one or more of: storing the NFT owner identifier and presenting the NFT owner identifier to a verifier device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the creation and sale of mystery NFT boxes in an online marketplace platform in NFTIFY to expressly include A computer-implemented method implemented via one or more processors of one or more servers, the method comprising: (claim 1); A computing system comprising one or more servers, the one or more servers comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: (claim 11); One or more computer readable media storing non-transitory instructions that, when executed via one or more processors of one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to: (claim 12); via a first client computing device; to each of a second plurality of client computing devices, as taught in Shulman, since the combination is of known elements (NFT marketplace being implements on and by computing devices) and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 22 , NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the plurality of items comprises a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). (Like its name suggests, an NFT mystery box is a box filled with NFTs; and similar to loot boxes that you see in games, with mystery boxes, you can get one NFT upon opening.- see example of mystery box on Binance NFT marketplace in Figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
936
1455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marketplace Interface
Regarding claim 3, 13, and 23, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. While NFTIFY discloses “Before heading to an NFT marketplace to buy mystery boxes, you should note that you need a crypto wallet such as MetaMask in order to buy items. Purchasing mystery boxes usually require payment in a specific cryptocurrency (e.g., ETH, BNB, MATIC) or a specific stablecoin (e.g., BUSD).”, the reference does not expressly disclose:
based upon receiving the indication of the one or more selections of the plurality of NFTs, causing the plurality of NFTs to be transferred from a digital wallet of the host user to an intermediary digital wallet; and
upon a conclusion of the offering of the first bundle, causing the first bundle of NFTs to be transferred from the intermediary digital wallet to a digital wallet of a guest user to whom the first bundle of NFTs were awarded in the offering of the first bundle.
However Shulman teaches:
based upon receiving the indication of the one or more selections of the plurality of NFTs, causing the plurality of NFTs to be transferred from a digital wallet of the host user to an intermediary digital wallet; and upon a conclusion of the offering of the first bundle, causing the first bundle of NFTs to be transferred from the intermediary digital wallet to a digital wallet of a guest user to whom the first bundle of NFTs were awarded in the offering of the first bundle. [0033] The steps of the methods for managing NFTs can be executed by various devices held by an issuer, owner, or issuance administrator. The steps could be conducted by an issuer device with a network connection to a portal offered by the administrator for designing a visual representation of an NFT. The steps could also be conducted by an owner device operated by a user who owns the NFT and is attempting to showcase their collection or allow a verifier to verify their NFT ownership (i.e., an owner). In specific implementations, the owner device can be a smartphone wallet and include a mobile smartphone wallet application and a network connection. The owner device can use the network connection to receive a bundle that includes data representing the NFT owner identifier, or other data associated with the NFT, and can use the wallet application to store the bundle as a card or electronic card in the wallet application. The bundle can be distributed and received over a network connection using a web user interface provided by the administrator, by delivering the bundle via an application programming interface on an application administrated by the issuance administrator on an owner device, or by sending the bundle to an owner device in an email or other electronic communication where the bundle can be downloaded and saved to the device. The bundle could then be opened using a wallet application such that the NFT data was safeguarded by and accessible from the wallet application. In specific implementations, the owner device can do one or more of: storing the NFT owner identifier and presenting the NFT owner identifier to a verifier device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the creation and sale of mystery NFT boxes in an online marketplace platform in NFTIFY to expressly include based upon receiving the indication of the one or more selections of the plurality of NFTs, causing the plurality of NFTs to be transferred from a digital wallet of the host user to an intermediary digital wallet; and upon a conclusion of the offering of the first bundle, causing the first bundle of NFTs to be transferred from the intermediary digital wallet to a digital wallet of a guest user to whom the first bundle of NFTs were awarded in the offering of the first bundle, as taught in Shulman, since the combination is of known elements (NFT marketplace being implements on and by computing devices) and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, 14, and 24, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the first communications indicating the first bundle include information describing the one or more items in the first bundle but do not identify the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. (Like its name suggests, an NFT mystery box is a box filled with NFTs; and similar to loot boxes that you see in games, with mystery boxes, you can get one NFT upon opening.- see example of mystery box on Binance NFT marketplace)
PNG
media_image2.png
816
1268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marketplace Interface
Regarding claim 5, 15, and 25, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the second communications identify the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. ("The mystery box was airdropped last February, among token holders of the CloneX project tokens and other RTFKT collections. It was only until a few months later that holders of MNLTH (pronounced Monolith) mystery boxes were allowed to open their boxes and reveal the content inside. From user reports, it looks like that inside these mystery boxes was a pair of RTFKT x Nike Dunk Genesis CRYPTOKICKS, a Skin Vial digital item needed to modify the NFT and free MNLTH mint passes.")
Regarding claim 6, 16, and 26, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses the ability to create more than one mystery box either by quantity in Step 4 or repeating the process to create additional individual boxes that are listed in step 4 in the marketplace. The listings in the marketplace interpreted as communications. Updated or new listings for new bundles.
PNG
media_image3.png
705
1099
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marketplace Interface
NFTIFY does not expressly disclose:
subsequent to transmitting the second communications, transmitting third communications to each of the second plurality of client computing devices, the second communications indicating a second bundle among the one or more bundles.
However Shulman teaches:
subsequent to transmitting the second communications, transmitting third communications to each of the second plurality of client computing devices, the second communications indicating a second bundle among the one or more bundles. [0032] the bundle generating system and distribute bundles with associated NFT data for owners and issuers.
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 plurality of listings in the marketplace interface shown in NFTify to include transmitting third communications to each of the second plurality of client computing devices, as taught in Shulman, as it would have been obvious to try with a limited or finite number of predictable results to repeat the process of sending communications as new bundles were generated and distributed. (MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 7, 17, and 27, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the transmitting of the first communications is performed responsive to receiving an identification of the first bundle from the first client computing device associated with the host of the online session. (Step 3: Add the Series Content for this mystery box then Step 4: List your mystery box for sale Once listed for sale, your mystery box will be in its own Mystery Box over on your NFT marketplace)
Regarding claim 8, 18, and 28, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the second communications cause each of the second plurality of client computing devices in the online session to display an animation revealing the subset of the plurality of items in the first bundle. (shown in Figures 2 and 3 below)
PNG
media_image4.png
833
1331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Interface representation of the mystery box loading
PNG
media_image5.png
863
1373
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Interface representation of the mystery box opened and contents displayed
Regarding claim 9,19, and 29, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. While NFTIFY discloses the process of creating a mystery box of NFTs, listing and selling the mystery box on a marketplace, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second plurality of client computing devices includes the first client computing device.
However Shulman teaches:
wherein the second plurality of client computing devices includes the first client computing device. [0033] The steps of the methods for managing NFTs can be executed by various devices held by an issuer, owner, or issuance administrator. The steps could be conducted by an issuer device with a network connection to a portal offered by the administrator for designing a visual representation of an NFT. The steps could also be conducted by an owner device operated by a user who owns the NFT and is attempting to showcase their collection or allow a verifier to verify their NFT ownership (i.e., an owner).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the creation and sale of mystery NFT boxes in an online marketplace platform in NFTIFY to expressly include wherein the second plurality of client computing devices includes the first client computing device, as taught in Shulman, since the combination is of known elements (NFT marketplace being implements on and by computing devices) and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 10, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NFTIFY (“Understanding Mystery Box NFT: The Complete Guide”) in view of Shulman (US 20230419306) in further view of Sandholm (US 20140058872).
Regarding claim 10, 20, and 30, NFTIFY in view of Shulman teaches the limitations set forth above. NFTIFY further discloses:
wherein the first communications further indicate the one or more price values for the first bundle. (pricing shown in interface communication of the listed box shown in Figure 4)
PNG
media_image6.png
492
1099
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Interface showing the mystery box with corresponding price
While NFTIFY discloses the process of creating a mystery box of NFTs, listing and selling the mystery box on a marketplace and Shulman discloses the computer system for implementing the method, the reference does not expressly disclose:
determining one or more price values for each of the one or more bundles, based upon previous sale values associated with the corresponding subsets of items in the one or more bundles
However Sandholm teaches:
determining one or more price values for each of the one or more bundles, based upon previous sale values associated with the corresponding subsets of items in the one or more bundles [0034] The process 300 includes accessing historical purchase data (302). The historical purchase data may be indicative of items that have been purchased and prices at which each of the items was purchased. [0036] Customer valuation modeling may involve predictions about what would happen to the purchase frequencies under different price catalogs. Customer valuation modeling considers the price catalogs that were on offer at the time of purchase, which can provide additional information about sensitivities to price changes. Also see [0040] and abstract
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 creation, listing, and sale of the bundled NFT mystery box in NFTIFY in view of Shulman to include determining one or more price values for each of the one or more bundles, based upon previous sale values associated with the corresponding subsets of items in the one or more bundles, as taught in Sandholm, in order to ensure that the outcome function is sensitive to the expressions of both the customer and the seller (paragraph 0023).
Related Art Not Cited
CN 113807917 discloses the creating and selling of a virtual blind box comprising NFTs.
“How to Bid in an NFT/Mystery Box Auction on Binance NFT Marketplace” which discloses the buying of mystery boxes in an online auction in which a plurality of potential buyers can bid and track bidding progress in real time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101 Prong 2, the examiner maintains the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 101. While the claims now recite “substantially in real time” to further detail the display of information across multiple devices, this does not detail the technical nature in which there is automatic coordination of communication and state changes across multiple distributed devices is accomplished. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially in real time”, this could be merely presentation of the information in the instance in which the device requests the information and such information being available to multiple devices (i.e. more than one device can interact with a marketplace and receive the information at the time it is requested). The characterization of how the instant application improves over conventional systems is not within the scope of the claim language. The claim does not require a “synchronized state changes across multiple distributed devices based on offering events, particularly where bundle contents are to be concealed until offering conclusion, at which point the contents are to be revealed in real-time (e.g., synchronously and simultaneously) to all participants” and does not limit the claim to “synchronized communication protocols”. The claim is not recited in this narrow scope limiting the claims to synchronous or simultaneous presentation of information. As the claims are not commensurate in scope with the remarks and do not recite limitations integrating any alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least by reciting a particular technological solution to the technical problem of coordinating real-time communications and synchronized state changes across multiple distributed client computing devices during live online sessions, the remarks are not found to be persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 103, the examiner maintains the previously cited art teaches the claims as amended. As noted above, the claims recitation of “substantially in real time” is not limited to synchronous purchasing or synchronous display of information across a plurality of device. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this could be more than one device can interact with a marketplace and receive the information at the time it is requested. With this interpretation, the previously cited NFTIFY does disclose shown in NFT box event, the NFT mystery box is live on a marketplace. The examiner interprets the live event for the box on a marketplace as substantially in real time display information as that is the characteristic of a live event in a marketplace. With the event on a marketplace, more than one device can request and receive the corresponding information in real time. As the claim is not limited to synchronous display or communication protocol, the prior art is not required to teach such embodiment. However, the examiner does not concede that NFTIFY does not teach such interpretation. The examiner also notes the mystery boxes being allowed to be opened to reveal the content is done across all holders at the same time, though the time is set to a later date, there is nothing in the claims precluding it from occurring later, if the claims are requiring the information be displayed “substantially in real time”. Based on this claim interpretation, Shulman is also maintained, as it teaches in [0033], more than one device can interact with an NFT and receive the information at the time it is requested. For at least these reasons, the examiner does not find the remarks directed to the claims now reciting the limited synchronous communication protocol to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights