Acknowledgments
Claims 1 and 14-15 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s argument, see pg. 9, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of instant claims 1-20 under Double Patenting that applicant submitted a Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the rejection has been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-11, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103 that the combination of Nahapetyan in view of Nam and in further view of Sugawara does not anticipate amended claim 1, specifically the amended limitations directed to issuer-controlled transferability of cryptographic digital assets, ledger-recorded ownership transition mechanics, and prevention of unauthorized transfers based on issuer-defined conditions recorded on a blockchain ledger are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Comito (US 20230037296). In addition, the amended limitations have resulted in a new Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 101 rejection. Further detail is provided below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a US Provisional Application No. 63/510,478 filed on 06/27/2023 is acknowledged. Applicant's claim for the benefit of a US Provisional Application No. 63/607,745 filed on 12/08/2023 is acknowledged.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending application 18/956,103 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The newly added limitations “determining, based on the recorded transferability state on the distributed computing network, whether transfer of the cryptographic digital asset is permitted; blocking the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset when the issuer-defined predetermined conditions do not permit transfer” comprise a contingent clause. If the transfer is blocked or not permitted, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim ends with the blocking limitation. The BRI of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. See MPEP 2111.04
Examiner Note: Examiner suggests adding an independent system claim similar to the method claim to give the contingent limitations patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claim 1 is directed to a method (a process).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claim 1 recites: authenticating a membership issuer using a graphical user interface; issuing a membership to a first user, over a distributed computing network on a server, to a user device associated with the first user; generating a cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership, wherein the total number of generated cryptographic digital assets is configurable based on one or more criteria from the membership issuer, the one or more criteria comprising: an expected number of customers at sign-up of a new membership; a predetermined value of membership at a beginning of the new membership; and an adjustment in the value of membership regulated by an algorithm that updates the value based on membership activity data; creating, using the distributed computing network, an agreement defining one or more issuer-defined predetermined conditions governing transfer of the cryptographic digital asset, wherein the agreement is recorded on the distributed computing network and enforces transfer restrictions without re-minting the cryptographic digital asset; recording, on the distributed computing network, an issuer-defined transferability state for the cryptographic digital asset that indicates whether the membership is transferable; associating the cryptographic digital asset with the first user; transmitting, using a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the associated cryptographic digital asset for authorization of transactions recorded on the distributed computing network; determining, based on the recorded transferability state on the distributed computing network, whether transfer of the cryptographic digital asset is permitted; blocking the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset when the issuer-defined predetermined conditions do not permit transfer; receiving a request to transfer the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user; transferring, based on the received request, over the distributed computing network, the cryptographic digital asset from the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user to a cryptographic wallet associated with the second user; appending a new, immutable transaction record to the distributed computing network such that the cryptographic digital asset is no longer associated with the first user updating, using the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the agreement on the distributed computing network to reflect an ownership change of the cryptographic digital asset with the second user; and sending for display to a user device associated with the second user, confirmation of the updated agreement.
Claim 1 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of issuing a membership and determining the membership is non-transferable. Certain methods of organizing human activity commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations). Under BRI the italicized language of claim 1 is not considered.
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) “processor,” “graphical user interface,” “distributed computing network,” “cryptographic digital asset,” and “a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator” generally “apply” the concept of issuing a membership and determining the membership is non-transferable. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The steps (e.g., issuing, defining conditions, determining if transferable) are routine in the field of management of user membership and do not recite a specific technical improvement to computer functionality or another technical field. The claim does not require a particular machine, transformation, or unconventional technical solution, but rather, automates a business process using generic computer components. 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 elements of using processor, graphical user interface, distributed computing network, cryptographic digital asset, and a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of issuing a membership and determining the membership is non-transferable. 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 dependent claim 2 which claim “wherein the membership comprises metadata” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 3 which claims “determining a value associated with the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to the second user” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 4 which claims “transmitting a notification to the second user with instructions for accessing the cryptographic digital asset” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claims 5-7 which claims “wherein the cryptographic digital asset is a nonfungible token (NFT), wherein the NFT is minted with predetermined conditions, wherein the predetermined conditions comprise at least one of metadata of the NFT, image data, trait data, or ownership data” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 8 which claims “wherein the membership is linked to a storage unit on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 9 which claims “wherein the processor is further configured to authenticate ownership of the membership” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 10 which claims “wherein the membership issuer can track membership ownerships on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claims 11-12 which claims “wherein the operations further comprise searching, on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator for agreements associated with a storage unit; displaying the agreement associated with the searched storage unit; or upon determining no agreements are associated with the searched storage unit, displaying an option to deploy a new agreement” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claims 13-15 which claims “wherein the processor is configured to contain information comprising at least one value associated with the cryptographic digital asset, an image associated with the cryptographic digital asset, and a unique identifier; wherein the at least one value is transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user or wherein the at least one value is not transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user if the transfer is rejected” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 16 which claims “wherein the displaying to the user device associated with the second user further comprises a user interface, wherein a user selects one of: closing a confirmation of the updated agreement; submitting another request; or clicking an interactive button” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claims 17-18 which claims “wherein the user device associated with the first user comprises one of a mobile device, tablet, or a personal computer; wherein the user device associated with the second user comprises one of a mobile device, tablet, or a personal computer” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 19 which claims “marking the cryptographic digital asset with an attribute” which merely elaborate 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 dependent claim 20 which claims “wherein generating the cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership occurs using an application programming interface (API) call” which merely elaborate 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahapetyan (US 20240370942) in view of Nam (WO 2023106581) in further view of Comito (US 20230037296) in further view of Sugawara (US 20240257114).
Regarding Claim 1, Nahapetyan teaches a computer-implemented method executed by at least one processor, for management of user memberships (Paragraph 0162 teaches FIG. 8 is a simplified diagram of a method for receiving a non-fungible token through an invitation link, according to some embodiments; one or more of the processes of the method may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transitory, tangible, machine-readable media that when run by one or more processors—such as may be present, for example, in user device shown in FIG. 1 or one or more servers, user computers, and mobile devices of the networked computing environment shown in FIG. 2 —may cause the one or more processors to perform one or more of the processes), comprising: authenticating a membership issuer using a graphical user interface (Paragraphs 0173-0174 teach if an invitee user elects or chooses to join a community to which she/he/they has been invited, then the systems and methods of the present disclosure may query the user for an invitation code or ID passphrase; after the user enters the code on her/his/their user device, the user device sends a request back up to a web server with the user account information and the invite ID passphrase; the web server uses this information to authenticate the invitee, for example, by verifying that the user is in possession of the key that grants her/him/them access to the invited DAO or community); issuing a membership to a first user, over a distributed computing network on a server, to a user device associated with the first user (Paragraph 0175 teaches the server then generates or mints a new non-fungible token, for example, by using a secret key to execute a command to the blockchain; the system may also create an active membership card for the user for the respective community); generating a cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership (Paragraph 0175 teaches the server then generates or mints a new non-fungible token, for example, by using a secret key to execute a command to the blockchain; the token is owned or possessed by the authenticated invitee and grants her/him/them access into the decentralized community; the minted token comprises or is embedded, incorporated, or associated with the membership card).
However, Nahapetyan does not explicitly teach generating a cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership, wherein the total number of generated cryptographic digital assets is configurable based on one or more criteria from the membership issuer, the one or more criteria comprising: an expected number of customers at sign-up of a new membership; a predetermined value of membership at a beginning of the new membership; and an adjustment in the value of membership regulated by an algorithm that updates the value based on membership activity data.
Nam from same or similar field of endeavor teaches generating a cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership, wherein the total number of generated cryptographic digital assets is configurable based on one or more criteria from the membership issuer, the one or more criteria comprising: an expected number of customers at sign-up of a new membership; a predetermined value of membership at a beginning of the new membership; and an adjustment in the value of membership regulated by an algorithm that updates the value based on membership activity data (Paragraphs 0086 and 0097-0099 teach any user may sign up as an integrated member of the screen golf company in the NFT membership distribution system in order to receive membership rights; a user who has successfully logged in as an integrated member of the screen golf company can apply for the sale of NFT membership rights; the NFT membership sales system determines the remaining number of NFT memberships, and if there is a remaining number, may issue memberships; in one embodiment, the determination of the remaining number of NFT memberships may be made by checking whether or not previously issued NFT memberships recorded in the screen golf company's wallet remain according to blockchain technology; in another embodiment, the determination of the remaining number of NFT memberships may be made by checking the issuance limit (N number) and the existing issuance quantity, and if the existing issuance quantity is less than the issuance limit, membership is issued through NFT minting; the NFT membership sales system determines the remaining number of NFT memberships, and if there is no remaining number, it may output a guide message indicating that issuance of membership is impossible; membership can be issued (or created) through NFT minting; NFT memberships can be issued only in a specific number, and the limited number of NFT memberships can be issued, for example, by considering the number of annual rounds of the golf course; the limited number of issued NFT memberships may be stored (or entered) in the database (DB); the limited number of NFT membership issuance is stored in the DB (430), and the issuance limit and the existing issued quantity are checked according to the membership sale application, and if there is a remaining number, the membership is issued and issued ( or paid); the issuance limit quantity and the existing issuance quantity are checked, and if there is no remaining quantity, issuance (or payment) of membership is not possible, and a message with these contents can be output; in another embodiment, NFT memberships are issued through NFT minting in an amount limited to issuance and stored in the DB, and then, according to an application for membership sale, it is checked whether there is a remaining number of issued NFT memberships that has not been sold, and the remaining number; if there is, membership can be issued (or paid); if there is no remaining number of issued NFT memberships without being distributed, issuance (or payment) of memberships is not possible, and a message with this content can be output).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Nahapetyan to incorporate the teachings of Nam to generate a cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership, wherein the total number of generated cryptographic digital assets is configurable based on one or more criteria from the membership issuer, the one or more criteria comprising: an expected number of customers at sign-up of a new membership; a predetermined value of membership at a beginning of the new membership; and an adjustment in the value of membership regulated by an algorithm that updates the value based on membership activity data.
There is motivation to combine Nam into Nahapetyan because it was difficult to realize the issuance of memberships for virtual sports facilities, as there was no appropriate means to sell a limited number of memberships for virtual sports facilities and to trade and monetize them. The NFT-based virtual sports facility membership issuance system includes an issuing server capable of issuing a membership that can use a virtual sports facility based on NFT. The issuing server issues the membership through NFT minting, receives an application for issuance of the membership, checks the remaining quantity of the membership according to the issuance request, and issues the membership if the remaining quantity is at least one or more (Nam Paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
However, the combination of Nahapetyan and Nam does not explicitly teach creating, using the distributed computing network, an agreement defining one or more issuer-defined predetermined conditions governing transfer of the cryptographic digital asset, wherein the agreement is recorded on the distributed computing network and enforces transfer restrictions without re-minting the cryptographic digital asset; recording, on the distributed computing network, an issuer-defined transferability state for the cryptographic digital asset that indicates whether the membership is transferable; associating the cryptographic digital asset with the first user; determining, based on the recorded transferability state on the distributed computing network, whether transfer of the cryptographic digital asset is permitted; blocking the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset when the issuer-defined predetermined conditions do not permit transfer.
Comito from same or similar field of endeavor teaches creating, using the distributed computing network, an agreement defining one or more issuer-defined predetermined conditions governing transfer of the cryptographic digital asset, wherein the agreement is recorded on the distributed computing network and enforces transfer restrictions without re-minting the cryptographic digital asset (Paragraphs 0028-0029 teach the specialized digital asset may require previous consent to or otherwise represent an agreement between i) a given user to hold the set of rights that is associated with the correlated entity and ii) an original holder of the set of rights, and/or require completion of other prerequisites; the correlated entities of the specialized digital assets may include a digital membership card; the given user may be required to consent to the agreement and/or complete the other prerequisites prior to receiving the specialized digital asset in their digital wallet; the specialized digital asset may be permitted to be acquired from the digital asset distribution platform upon receipt of the consent to the agreement by the user; by way of non-limiting example, the agreement may specify that the correlated entity is made available to the holder of the collectible digital asset, particular transfer and use restrictions, that the holder does not own the correlated entity itself, and/or other information; the agreement may include the set of rights which specify such availability, transfer restrictions, and user restrictions); recording, on the distributed computing network, an issuer-defined transferability state for the cryptographic digital asset that indicates whether the membership is transferable (Paragraph 0029 teaches the specialized smart contract that mints the specialized digital assets may be encoded to restrict the specialized digital asset from being transferred between digital wallets of different users and/or restrict transfers to between digital wallets of the same user; acquisition of the specialized digital asset may include a set of restrictions to the specialized digital asset; the set of restrictions may restrict the user from transferring, trading, loaning, selling, or otherwise surrendering to another user); associating the cryptographic digital asset with the first user (Paragraphs 0058-0059 teach receiving, from a digital asset distribution platform, an indication that a user is requesting acquisition of a collectible digital asset in a digital wallet associated with the user; the collectible digital asset may be associated with a correlated entity; the digital wallet may indicate various digital assets that the user owns or holds; the digital wallet may correspond to addresses tracked by a decentralized ledger; a smart contract may include determining whether one or more conditions related to the digital wallet are fulfilled); determining, based on the recorded transferability state on the distributed computing network, whether transfer of the cryptographic digital asset is permitted (Paragraph 0060 teaches upon determination that the one or more conditions are fulfilled, transmitting to the digital asset distribution platform an authorization indication that the acquisition of the collectible digital asset by the digital wallet is permitted); blocking the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset when the issuer-defined predetermined conditions do not permit transfer (Paragraph 0061 teaches upon determination that the one or more conditions are not fulfilled, transmitting to the digital asset distribution platform a prevention indication to prevent the acquisition of the collectible digital asset by the digital wallet).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan and Nam to incorporate the teachings of Comito to create, using the distributed computing network, an agreement defining one or more issuer-defined predetermined conditions governing transfer of the cryptographic digital asset, wherein the agreement is recorded on the distributed computing network and enforces transfer restrictions without re-minting the cryptographic digital asset; record, on the distributed computing network, an issuer-defined transferability state for the cryptographic digital asset that indicates whether the membership is transferable; associate the cryptographic digital asset with the first user; determine, based on the recorded transferability state on the distributed computing network, whether transfer of the cryptographic digital asset is permitted; block the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset when the issuer-defined predetermined conditions do not permit transfer.
There is motivation to combine Comito into the combination of Nahapetyan and Nam because the system facilitates dynamic, meaningful, and legally enforceable relationships between original content creators of the correlated entities and users who collect the collectible digital assets (Comito Paragraph 0003).
However, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, and Comito does not explicitly teach transmitting, using a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the associated cryptographic digital asset; receiving a request to transfer the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user; transferring, based on the received request, over the distributed computing network, the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user; appending a new, immutable transaction record to the distributed computing network such that the cryptographic digital asset is no longer associated with the first user; updating, using the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the agreement based on the association of the cryptographic digital asset with the second user; and sending for display to a user device associated with the second user, confirmation of the updated agreement.
Sugawara from same or similar field of invention teaches transmitting, using a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the associated cryptographic digital asset for authorization of transactions recorded on the distributed computing network (Paragraph 0057 teaches if the MP receives a request for executing the purchase start processing, the MP transmits, to the contract, the NFT transfer request for changing the address of the NFT issuer as the original owner of the application NFT, to a transfer source (From), and the address of the MFP 131 to a transfer destination (To); the smart contract generates a transaction for changing the owner from the NFT issuer to the MFP 131, executes the program logic, and issues a request to add a block of the generated transaction to the block chain); receiving a request to transfer the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user (Paragraphs 0058-0059 teach next, transfer processing for the application NFT in which the MFP 132 (i.e., second user) purchases the application NFT in a procedure illustrated in FIG. 2C will be described; if the MFP 131 executes the sale of the application NFT on the MP by pressing the NFT sale button, the MFP 131 transmits a request for executing sale start processing to the MP); transferring, based on the received request, over the distributed computing network, the cryptographic digital asset from the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user to a cryptographic wallet associated with the second user (Paragraph 0060 teaches on the MFP 132, to purchase the application NFT from the MP, the user presses the NFT purchase button illustrated in FIG. 2C; a screen of the MP is accordingly displayed; an example of the screen of the MP will be described below with reference to FIG. 9; when an NFT purchase button displayed on an NFT detailed display screen of the MP is selected, the MFP 132 transmits a request for executing the purchase start processing to the MP; if the MP receives the request for executing the purchase start processing, the MP transmits, to the contract, the NFT transfer request to change an address of the MFP 131 that is the owner of the application NFT to a transfer source (From), and the address of the MFP 132 to a transfer destination (To)); appending a new, immutable transaction record to the distributed computing network such that the cryptographic digital asset is no longer associated with the first user (Paragraph 0060 teaches the smart contract generates a transaction to change the owner from the MFP 131 to the MFP 132, executes the program logic, and transmits a request to add a block of the generated transaction to the block chain); updating, using the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the agreement on the distributed computing network to reflect an ownership change of the cryptographic digital asset with the second user (Paragraph 0060 teaches if it is confirmed based on the state data that the transaction has been added, the owner of the application NFT has been changed to the MFP 132); and sending for display to a user device associated with the second user, confirmation of the updated agreement (Paragraph 0060 teaches the MP transmits the purchase completion response to the MFP 132, and registers the MFP 132 as the owner of the application NFT).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, and Comito to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara to transmit, using a distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the associated cryptographic digital asset; receive a request to transfer the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user; transfer, based on the received request, over the distributed computing network, the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to a second user; append a new, immutable transaction record to the distributed computing network such that the cryptographic digital asset is no longer associated with the first user; update, using the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator, the agreement based on the association of the cryptographic digital asset with the second user; and send for display to a user device associated with the second user, confirmation of the updated agreement.
There is motivation to combine Sugawara into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, and Comito because the blocks are monitored by a plurality of nodes on the block chain, an operation such as falsification, change, or deletion of blocks becomes inexecutable. Thus, the application NFT always exists in the block chain as one NFT. Because data of the application which is entity data stored in the storage device of the MFP 131 is deleted during a sale operation of an NFT, it is possible to prevent the application from being improperly copied and distributed. In addition, because the owner of the application NFT can be identified from the block chain, in a sales company of the application, an ownership history of the application NFT can be tracked (Sugawara Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the membership comprises metadata (Paragraphs 0119 and 0147 teaches the received parameters are used to generate or mint non-fungible tokens that may be used for membership in the new community; membership tokens can be generated using one of the images provided by the user; the image is processed or transformed into a “membership card;” club metadata is added to the appearance of the card, such as the club name and NFT edition number; the web server appends or adds text or input blanks to the transformed image or abstract design; this text can include, for example, the name of the community, a level of membership (e.g., standard or premium), and a membership number, as seen in the example screenshots of user interfaces of FIGS. 11C and 11D; at least some of the items added at this point simplify specify information to be added later, e.g., a particular member’s name, membership number, and/or starting date of membership, which can be filled in later; in other words, the method creates or generates a format for the membership card of the community).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach determining a value associated with the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to the second user.
Sugawara further teaches determining a value associated with the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to the second user (Paragraph 0088 teaches the CPU determines whether the application NFT is applicable to the MFP, based on product information of the NFT, and determines whether the application NFT is purchasable, based on a price of the application NFT and a token amount (virtual currency) of the wallet; that is, the CPU determines whether virtual currency equivalent to money necessary for the purchase of the application NFT is included in the wallet of the MFP).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the further teachings of Sugawara to determine a value associated with the transfer of the cryptographic digital asset from the first user to the second user.
There is motivation to further combine Sugawara into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because of the same reasons listed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the cryptographic digital asset is a non-fungible token (NFT) (Paragraphs 0063-0064 teach access to the on-line or virtual space of a community can be restricted or controlled by the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs); each member of a community can be assigned, granted, or associated with her/his/their own unique non-fungible token for that community; each non-fungible token is a digital asset, similar to cryptocurrency, and can be owned by only one person at a time; unlike cryptocurrency tokens, which are fungible with many of the same token existing, non-fungible tokens are limited to a supply of one unique digital token).
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the NFT is minted with predetermined conditions (Paragraphs 0067-0069 teach when a new non-fungible token is minted, the smart contract automatically sets the creator, which can be the administrator or operator for ecosystem, as the owner; the application uses non-fungible tokens specifically to maintain membership within decentralized communities; a non-fungible token can function to represent a user or member's identity, property rights, privileges, etc. for the community; in some embodiments, non-fungible tokens are represented, e.g., on a user interface associated with the application, through algorithmically generated images that resemble a uniquely editioned “membership card;” a user or individual must have a non-fungible token to establish that she/he/they is a member of a community, thereby being granted access to the respective on-line or virtual space of the community).
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the predetermined conditions comprise at least one of metadata of the NFT, image data, trait data, or ownership data (Paragraph 0068 teaches the application uses non-fungible tokens specifically to maintain membership within decentralized communities; a non-fungible token can function to represent a user or member's identity, property rights, privileges, etc. for the community; in some embodiments, non-fungible tokens are represented, e.g., on a user interface associated with the application, through algorithmically generated images that resemble a uniquely editioned “membership card;” when creating a club, the application provides an option to add in photos and generate the NFT membership card design algorithmically and/or through neural networks).
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the membership is linked to a storage unit on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator (Paragraph 0172 teaches FIG. 10 shows an example of a screenshot of a user interface for a digital wallet with one or more membership cards; the digital wallet may include active membership cards for each community to which a user is already a member and open membership cards for each community to which a user has been invited; each membership card (whether active or open) can be associated with an active element or icon that can be “pushed” or activated by the user; upon activation of the respective active element by the user, the systems and methods (e.g., application) will present an interface showing the membership card virtually being removed from the digital wallet and presented in full or complete form on the screen (e.g., of user device)).
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the process is further configured to authenticate ownership of the membership (Paragraph 0095 teaches user computers, and mobile devices store and maintain one or more forms, code, or modules for smart contracts; such smart contracts implement actions, transactions, administration, governance, and the like in connection with the activity of members in their communities; for example, a smart contract can implement gate-keeping for the community, checking whether users have the appropriate token for a club and allowing or granting only those users with the appropriate tokens access to the on-line or virtual space or the community).
Regarding Claim 10, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the membership issuer can track membership ownerships on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator (Paragraph 0067, 0069-0070, and 0072 teach when a new non-fungible token is minted, the smart contract automatically sets the creator, which can be the administrator or operator for ecosystem, as the owner; after that, smart contracts can transfer the non-fungible tokens to new owners, such as various users, when such users agree to join as members of a community; this governance and control of the community by members can be implemented or provided through smart contracts living on the blockchain that execute decisions automatically, for example, based on voting by token holders; communities of ecosystem are decentralized, leveraging peer-to-peer technologies such as layer one blockchains to maintain membership information; as such, membership for each community can be verified in a trust-less, distributed, and permanent way that cannot be tampered with by a third-party, such as the administrator or operator of ecosystem; a decentralized community, like any one or more of the communities of ecosystem, is managed through membership that is maintained using blockchain or distributed ledger technology, where members hold non-fungible tokens representing participation and ownership in this community; the distributed ledger prevents a single centralized service (such as a typical social networking platform provider) from removing members or shutting down the community; furthermore, the distributed ledger gives the token owners the power to move from one platform to another at their will).
Regarding Claim 11, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the operations further comprise searching, on the distributed cryptographic digital asset private key generator for agreements associated with a storage unit (Paragraph 178 teaches the electronic membership card and/or minted token are added to the invitee user's digital wallet as seen, for example, in FIG. 10; the systems and methods of the present disclosure can establish or provide for membership to a club or community by invoking the smart contract code via the NEAR RPC protocol; each user has exactly one “wallet address” and that wallet address can be sent (e.g., by the application running on device) via the RPC protocol to any club smart contract (e.g., maintained or running on computers or servers in computing environment or in peer-to-peer network); the function invoke is nft_tokens_for_user; if this RPC endpoint returns data, then membership is verified; alternatively, if the systems and methods determine that this RPC endpoint returns no data, then the wallet address has no entitlement to any NFTs known by that contract, and membership is denied).
Regarding Claim 12, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: displaying the agreement associated with the searched storage unit; or upon determining no agreements are associated with the searched storage unit, displaying an option to deploy a new agreement (Paragraph 0172 and 0178-0179 teach FIG. 10 shows an example of a screenshot of a user interface for a digital wallet with one or more membership cards; the digital wallet may include active membership cards for each community to which a user is already a member and open membership cards for each community to which a user has been invited; in some examples, each membership card (whether active or open) can be associated with an active element or icon that can be “pushed” or activated by the user; upon activation of the respective active element by the user, the systems and methods (e.g., application) will present an interface showing the membership card virtually being removed from the digital wallet and presented in full or complete form on the screen (e.g., of user device); the electronic membership card and/or minted token are added to the invitee user's digital wallet as seen, for example, in FIG. 10; the systems and methods of the present disclosure can establish or provide for membership to a club or community by invoking the smart contract code via the NEAR RPC protocol; each user has exactly one “wallet address” and that wallet address can be sent (e.g., by the application running on device) via the RPC protocol to any club smart contract (e.g., maintained or running on computers or servers in computing environment or in peer-to-peer network); the function invoke is nft_tokens_for_user; if this RPC endpoint returns data, then membership is verified; alternatively, if the systems and methods determine that this RPC endpoint returns no data, then the wallet address has no entitlement to any NFTs known by that contract, and membership is denied; the user can user the membership card or token as a ticket or pass for entry to live events held by the community, for example, by “pulling out” the card or token from her/his/their digital wallet so that it presented in full form on the screen of user device where it can be scanned or checked; a user member may use also her/his/their membership card and/or token, for example, to conducts transactions within or gain access to the on-line or virtual space for the community).
Regarding Claim 13, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the processor is configured to contain information comprising at least one value associated with the cryptographic digital asset, an image associated with the cryptographic digital asset, and a unique identifier (Paragraphs 0095 and 0119 teach one or more smart contracts can also implement or execute the adding of new members, the deletion or removal of existing members, the deletion or removal of text, comments, discussion, images, audio or video content based on member or community preferences, etc.; systems and methods of the present disclosure identify, select, modify, complete forms or modules for smart contracts based on parameters input or determined from users; the received parameters are used to generate or mint non-fungible tokens that may be used for membership in the new community; membership tokens can be generated using one of the images provided by the user; the image is processed or transformed into a “membership card;” when the club creator uploads an image to use as the basis for the membership card NFT, the image is sent through an image processing pipeline; the image is scaled to the appropriate starting size; the features of the image are softened and blurred; a metallic sheen is added; club metadata is added to the appearance of the card, such as the club name and NFT edition number; each member receives a unique card which can be distinguished by the edition number).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one value is transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user.
Sugawara further teaches wherein the at least one value is transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user (Paragraphs 0088-0091 teach the CPU determines whether the application NFT is applicable to the MFP 131, based on product information of the NFT, and determines whether the application NFT is purchasable, based on a price of the application NFT and a token amount (virtual currency) of the wallet; in a case where the application NFT is applicable and purchasable, the CPU transmits, to the MP, a request for the purchase start processing for purchasing the application NFT; the CPU 402 displays a message indicating that an application NFT is being purchased; during the NFT purchase, there exists a state of waiting for a block to be added to the block chain in the transaction related to the movement of an NFT owner and the exchange of a token amount; because the owner of an NFT is not changed until a transaction is added in the block chain, by displaying a state that an application NFT is being purchased in the status display portion, the user of the MFP can recognize that processing on the block chain is in execution; the CPU receives, from the MP, information indicating purchase completion of the application NFT).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the further teachings of Sugawara for the at least one value to be transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user.
There is motivation to further combine Sugawara into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because, in this case, by checking NFT information of the application NFT of the MP, the owner of the application NFT can be confirmed. If an address of the wallet of the MFP 131 indicates the NFT owner of the application NFT, it can be confirmed that NFT purchase has succeeded (Sugawara Paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one value is not transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user if the transfer is rejected.
Sugawara further teaches wherein the at least one value is not transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user if the transfer is rejected (Paragraphs 0088 and 0094-0095 teach the CPU determines whether the application NFT is applicable to the MFP 131, based on product information of the NFT, and determines whether the application NFT is purchasable, based on a price of the application NFT and a token amount (virtual currency) of the wallet; in a case where the application NFT is inapplicable or unpurchasable, the CPU displays a message indicating that the purchase of the application NFT has failed, on the operation panel, and notifies the user of the failure; the message indicating that the purchase has failed may be displayed in the status display portion on the operation panel, and may be continuously displayed for a certain period of time; the CPU displays, on the operation panel, a message indicating that an NFT applicable to the MFP 131 does not exist in the MP).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the further teachings of Sugawara for the at least one value to be not transferred to the cryptographic wallet associated with the first user if the transfer is rejected.
There is motivation to further combine Sugawara into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because of the same reasons listed above for claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the user device associated with the first user comprises one of a mobile device, tablet, or a personal computer (Paragraph 0054 teaches user device can be a desktop personal computer, workstation, laptop, notepad computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, or any wireless access protocol (WAP) enabled device or any other suitable computing device capable of interfacing directly or indirectly to the Internet or other network connection).
Regarding Claim 18, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches wherein the user device associated with the second user comprises one of a mobile device, tablet, or a personal computer (Paragraph 0054 teaches user device can be a desktop personal computer, workstation, laptop, notepad computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, or any wireless access protocol (WAP) enabled device or any other suitable computing device capable of interfacing directly or indirectly to the Internet or other network connection).
Regarding Claim 19, the combinations of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Nahapetyan further teaches comprising marking the cryptographic digital asset, through the software module with an attribute (Paragraph 0119 teaches the received parameters are used to generate or mint non-fungible tokens that may be used for membership in the new community; membership tokens can be generated using one of the images provided by the user; the image is processed or transformed into a “membership card;” when the club creator uploads an image to use as the basis for the membership card NFT, the image is sent through an image processing pipeline; the image is scaled to the appropriate starting size; the features of the image are softened and blurred; a metallic sheen is added; club metadata is added to the appearance of the card, such as the club name and NFT edition number; each member receives a unique card which can be distinguished by the edition number).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein generating the cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership occurs using an application programming interface (API) call.
Sugawara further teaches wherein generating the cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership occurs using an application programming interface (API) call (Paragraph teaches in the block chain, a block of the contract that executes issuance and transfer of an NFT exists, and by calling this block using the RPC, the smart contract is executed; in the called RPC, an application program interface (API) for NFT issuance/NFT transfer/NFT information acquisition is prepared, and the RPC is executed when an operation on an NFT is performed in the MP).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the further teachings of Sugawara for generating the cryptographic digital asset associated with the membership to occur using an application programming interface (API) call.
There is motivation to further combine Sugawara into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because API enable seamless communication and data exchange between disparate applications, platforms, and services.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahapetyan (US 20240370942) in view of Nam (WO 2023106581) in further view of Comito (US 20230037296) in further view Sugawara (US 20240257114) in further view of McDonnell (US 20240095700).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach transmitting a notification to the second user with instructions for accessing the cryptographic digital asset.
McDonnell from same or similar field of endeavor teaches transmitting a notification to the second user with instructions for accessing the cryptographic digital asset (Paragraph 0069 teaches once the digital asset has been linked to a user, as through transfer to the user of the NFT securing the digital asset, the process may issue a digital notification, such as an email or push notification, to the user's smartphone, or other electronic device, with all related information for accessing, transferring, and intermingling the cryptographic digital asset; additionally, the remote host system may operate as a web server hosting a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) that is operable to translate the data stored in the encryption keys into a visual image that is displayed to the user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the teachings of McDonnell to transmit a notification to the second user with instructions for accessing the cryptographic digital asset.
There is motivation to combine McDonnell into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because an NFT or multiple NFTs can entitle the owner to exclusive benefits, or access to hosted resources that would otherwise not be available to the owner (McDonnell Paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the displaying to the user device associated with the second user further comprises a user interface, wherein a user selects one of: closing a confirmation of the updated agreement; submitting another request; or clicking an interactive button.
McDonnell from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the displaying to the user device associated with the second user further comprises a user interface, wherein a user selects one of: closing a confirmation of the updated agreement; submitting another request; or clicking an interactive button (Paragraph 0069 teaches once the digital asset has been linked to a user, as through transfer to the user of the NFT securing the digital asset, the process may issue a digital notification, such as an email or push notification, to the user's smartphone, or other electronic device, with all related information for accessing, transferring, and intermingling the cryptographic digital asset; additionally, the remote host system may operate as a web server hosting a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) that is operable to translate the data stored in the encryption keys into a visual image that is displayed to the user; digital asset manipulation and use may also be effectuated through the user's digital blockchain wallet; this may comprise posting the cryptographic digital asset to an online crypto-collectable marketplace or platform).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara to incorporate the teachings of McDonnell to transmit a notification to the second user with instructions for accessing the cryptographic digital asset.
There is motivation to combine McDonnell into the combination of Nahapetyan, Nam, Comito, and Sugawara because of the same reasons listed above for claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albero et al. (US 20240020690) teaches a system is provided for implementing transfer and access restrictions on electronic digital resources. In particular, the system may generate a digital resource on a distributed electronic data register using a custom set of executable code. Using the custom set of code, the generated digital resource may in some embodiments be an access restricted resource that may be controlled by one or more access and/or transfer restrictions. Accordingly, the system may require a user to provide valid authentication credentials in order to access and/or transfer the digital resource. In this way, the system may prevent the misuse of digital resource stored within the network environment.
Esquibel et al. (US 20240086905) teaches a computing system and method for protecting access to a particular resource. The computing device can identify a first cryptographic token in a first digital wallet. The first cryptographic token is configured to provide access to a particular resource. The computing device can generate a second cryptographic token bound to the first cryptographic token. The computing device can transfer the second cryptographic token to a second digital wallet based on the first cryptographic token. The computing device can access the particular resource based on the second cryptographic token being in the second digital wallet.
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 - 4:30 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights