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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The following detailed action acknowledges the amendments of the response filed on 08/04/2025. The amendments in the filed response have been entered.
Claim 2 has been amended.
Claims 1-3 are pending in the application and the status of the application is currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112, the Applicant argues: Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The Office Action notes that claim 2 is vague and indefinite because of the phrase "such as".
Claim 2 has been amended according to the Examiner's suggestions. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response: The amendment to claim 2 has overcome the rejection under 112(b). After review, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues: Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over JP_ 7180943 to Furuhashi ("Furuhashi"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0035950 to Wakabayashi ("Wakabayashi"), and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0163996 to Lys (hereinafter "Lys").
The Examiner's statement in Item 18 of the Office Action indicates that "[t]his application currently names joint inventors. " Applicant respectfully notes that the present application lists only a single named inventor. Accordingly, the advisory language regarding joint inventorship and potential common ownership under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b)(2)(C) does not apply. Applicant understands that this was standard language automatically included by the Office and appreciates the Examiner's confirmation that no further action is necessary and that this issue will not be raised in future correspondence.
Lys is focused on a conversational information retrieval system that processes user input, parses referential expressions, and generates queries against a knowledge base. The system builds and manipulates semantic structures (such as monadic and dyadic relations) to identify relevant data and generate responses. All logic in Lys is performed internally using linguistic parsing, internal databases, and predefined reference structures.
While Lys uses internal logic (e.g., such as software flags and license expiration timers) to gate content access, the present invention requires the server to display sensitive off-chain information only after interpreting a transaction status received from the wallet provider. The wallet provider and server operate in conjunction: the wallet provider retrieves the status of a blockchain transaction from the blockchain nodes, and the server performs the conditional display of sensitive off-chain information based on the transaction status information returned by the wallet provider. For example, the server determines whether to display sensitive off-chain information to the user only after it receives confirmation from the wallet provider (provider 30) that the transaction has been successfully recorded on the blockchain.
The subject matter of independent claim 1, as currently drafted, requires that the server display sensitive off-chain information only after a positive condition is satisfied-namely, when the server receives confirmation of the transaction and determines that the display condition has been met.
Claim 1 recites in part:
" ... receiving, from the wallet provider, a confirmation that a purchase process for the NFT is complete and the trading history of the NFT is recorded on the blockchain; and
in response to the confirmation,
displaying the information to be disclosed to limited people, which is stored in the database, on the user terminal of the user who has purchased the NFT, only after the user has completed a payment procedure on a payment screen displayed on the user terminal during the purchase of the NFT, and
wherein the wallet provider, upon confirming the trading history of the NFT recorded on the blockchain, returns a result indicating that a purchase process for the NFT is complete. " (Emphasis added).
The Office Action asserts that Lys teaches similar status-checking logic using internal polling mechanisms. The Office Action concludes that waiting for confirmation of a completed blockchain purchase is not fundamentally different from the polling of internal status flags (e.g., timers used to check license validity) in Lys. However, the subject matter of independent claim 1 distinguishes itself through architecture and control logic. In the subject matter of independent claim 1, the server references the transaction status returned by the wallet provider-specifically, a confirmation that the NFT transaction (including ownership transfer) has been successfully recorded on the blockchain-and, based on this confirmation, determines whether to display the sensitive off-chain information to the user. The wallet provider interfaces with blockchain nodes and returns the recorded status of the NFT transaction to the server. The server alone interprets this result and controls access to the information accordingly.
By contrast, Lys relies entirely on internal software mechanisms such as local timers and flags. Lys does not incorporate any external confirmation logic triggered by immutable blockchain events, nor does it distinguish between public and limited- information in a dynamic, transaction-based manner.
Accordingly, the server displays the sensitive off-chain information only after receiving confirmation from the wallet provider that the NFT transaction has been successfully recorded on the blockchain.
The server does not initiate the transaction or verify its finality, but instead references the status returned by the wallet provider as an input condition.
As a result, access to the sensitive off-chain information is therefore controlled entirely by the server based on this confirmed transaction status.
This external, transaction-based gating mechanism-unlike the internal polling logic used in Lys-ensures that sensitive off-chain information is disclosed only when the purchase has been immutably recorded on the blockchain.
In response: The argument against the art of Lys has been considered and the art has been withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented to show the claims as argued are obvious over the prior art. The claims 1-3 remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP_7,180,943 (hereinafter “Furuhashi”), in view of US_2022/0035950 (hereinafter “Wakabayashi”), and in view of US_11,727,366 (hereinafter “Cutler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Furuhashi teaches
An NFT marketplace system comprising: a server configured to connect to a user terminal via an Internet; a database connected to the server; and a wallet provider configured to read and write data to a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes, (“FTG. 1 is a diagram showing a configuration example of a transaction support system according to the present embodiment. The transaction support system according to the present embodiment includes a server 100 and a terminal 200. The server 100 and the terminal 200 are connected to a network 10, and can communicate with each other via the network 10. The network 10 includes the Internet. The network 10 may include a local area network (Local Area Network) and/or a wide area network (Wide Area Network). The terminal 200 is a dev ice that is operated by a user and has a communication function. The terminal 200 is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a personal computer (PC), or a wearable terminal.” See Furuhashi in [0013] to [0014], and Figs. 1; “The server 100 is communicably connected to the blockchain network 20. The blockchain network 20 is configured by a plurality of nodes (computers), and manages ledgers in a distributed manner. Such a distributed ledger is managed so as not to be easily tampered with by the mechanism of the blockchain. It a mechanism of the distributed ledger management by the blockchain, a general mechanism is adopted, and a detailed description thereof will be omitted.” See in [0015]) wherein:
the server is configured to conduct a transaction involving an NFT created in advance, wherein information about the NFT to be made public is recorded on the blockchain, wherein information to be disclosed to limited people regarding the NFT is stored in the database in association with a token ID of the NFT, (See Furuhashi in [0014]) and
wherein when a user has connected to the server using the user terminal and purchased the NFT further comprises: […] recording a trading history of the NFT on the blockchain, with a token ID, as public information on the blockchain via the wallet provider, (Tokens that may be issued by the blockchain network 20 include fungible tokens (FT) and non-fungible tokens (NFT). Unlike the FT, the NFT is a token that does not have substitutability. NFTs can have their own value as distinguished from other NFTs. The NFT has a unique identifier (NFT--ID) to allow it to be distinguished from other NFTs. The NFT, like the FT, is tradable over the blockchain network 20. The transaction history of the NFT is recorded in the blockchain network 20. In the distributed ledger of the blockchain network 20, the owner and the ownership history of the NFT are also recorded.” See Furuhashi in [0016]) and
wherein the wallet provider, upon confirming the trading history of the NFT recorded on the blockchain returns a result indicating that a purchase process for the NFT is complete. (See Furuhashi in [0016])
Furuhashi does not expressly teach displaying the information to be disclosed to limited people, which is stored in the database, on the user terminal of the user who has purchased the NFT, only after the user has completed a payment procedure on a payment screen displayed on the user terminal during the purchase of the NFT.
However, Wakabayashi does teach the database is registered with information to be made to be a limited disclosure in association with the token ID of the NFT, and to display information to be made to be a limited publication registered in the said database (“[0125] FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a ticket and journey record of a MaaS service. The ticket may be issued by a ticket or pass issuer (e.g. transport operator) or other MaaS service provider. In the blockchain, the passenger name or any personal data is not included, but only a (unique) ticket number is included in the data structure of the blocks 55 and 56 of the block chain, together with other data, such as who issued the ticket (Pass issuer #1, etc.), who is the Mobility service provider, the price of the ticket number which is associated with a certain passenger and a journey log identifier. [0126] For example, in this embodiment the blockchain is open for other members of the consortium, but they can only see the ticket number and not the sensitive data of the passengers (users). There is no clue who is the actual passenger in the blockchain. Only the ticket or pass issuer (or MaaS service provider) can identify the actual passenger name and identity, because he has the sensitive information stored in its database separated from the blockchain and associated with the ticket number.” See in [0125]-[0126]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Furuhashi to include “the display of information for registered users”, as taught by Wakabayashi, because the configuration of features in prior art defining blockchain technology would solve the respective problem.
Furuhashi, in view of Wakabayashi, does not expressly teach periodically checking the NFT purchase status with the wallet provider until the completion of the purchase process for the NFT on the blockchain can be confirmed; receiving, from the wallet provider, a confirmation that a purchase process for the NFT is complete and the trading history of the NFT is recorded on the blockchain. These limitations have been interpreted to recite the steps that trigger a display, checking the status of the purchase process.
However, Cutler does teach a process dependent on checking the license timer to proceed with the next steps (“In some implementations, a method includes periodically retrieving, at a state monitor and from a state monitor cache, an indication of a blockchain transaction that is not yet finalized. The method further includes querying a blockchain for a status update of the transaction and storing the status update in the state monitor cache such that a dispatch server retrieves the status update and provides the status update to a user of a distributed application associated with the blockchain transaction. In some implementations, when the status update is that the blockchain transaction is finalized, the storing includes storing the status update such that the dispatch server removes the indication of the blockchain transaction from the state monitor cache.” See Cutler in Col 3 Ln 61 – Col 4 Ln 6).
The process to check for a trigger to proceed with the next step in the process is known in the art, and is demonstrated to check for the status of a timer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Furuhashi to include “periodically checking for the status”, as taught by Cutler, because the trigger prevents unwanted actions until the transaction is complete.
Regarding Claim 2, Furuhashi, in view of Wakabayashi, in view of Cutler, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furuhashi, in view of Wakabayashi, further teaches wherein the information to be disclosed to limited people includes appointment-related information, comprising at least potential dates and times (“The term “multimodal transport pass” may be a pass which is valid for multi mobility services with specific conditions, such as valid period or available transport, unacceptable services, etc. For instance, a one-day ticket, one-week ticket, monthly MaaS service subscription, seasonal ticket, etc.” See Wakabayashi in [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Furuhashi, in view of Wakabayashi, in view of Cutler, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furuhashi, in view of Wakabayashi, further teaches wherein the server is configured to, upon the user who has purchased the NFT selecting a date and time from the potential dates and times displayed on the user terminal, register the selected date and time on the database in association with the token ID of the NFT. (“The term “Journey log” may cover a journey log which is a one-way journey record based on the ticket. It may include information about the location of embankment, time/day of it, the location of alight, time/day of it, whether the ticket is used or unused, etc., which will also be discussed further below.” See Wakabayashi in [0062])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR R. MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/ERM/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697