DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 5/24/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 5 are amended
Claims 10-12 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-9, 13-14 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-6, 13-14 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 7-9 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method of encapsulating trust mechanisms within a non-fungible token (NFT) comprising:
[B] receiving a request for generating a NFT of an item;
[C] validating the item;
[D] generating a validated NFT based on a positive validation of the item; and
[E] writing the validated NFT to a blockchain.
Independent claim 1 recites: validating the item ([C]); generating a validated NFT ([D]); and writing the NFT to a blockchain ([E]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: request for generating an item NFT ([B]), …. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1 are deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 7 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method of authenticating a non-fungible token (NFT) of interest comprising:
[B] receiving a request for authenticating the NFT of interest;
[C] determining if the NFT of interest is written to a blockchain and validated; and
[D] displaying proof to a user of NFT authenticity if the NFT is written to the blockchain and validated.
Independent claim 7 recites: checking if the NFT is on a blockchain ([C]); and providing positive proof ([D]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 7 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving a request for authenticating an NFT ([B]), …. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 7 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 7 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2 recites:
[A] generating at least one collectible NFT based on the validated NFT; and
[B] writing the at least one collectible NFT to the blockchain.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“redeeming assets from NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“redeeming assets from NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
[A] generating a package of proof based on the validation.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] combining the creative work, supporting documents and validation information into the package of proof.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] transmitting the package of proof to a validated NFT smart contract component; and
[B] generating the validated NFT based on the package of proof.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
[A] receiving utility information associated with the validated NFT; and
[B] generating a collectible NFT based on the utility information and a package of proof.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
[A] sensing connection of a cryptocurrency wallet; and
[B] searching the cryptocurrency wallet for the NFT of interest.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
[A] providing notification to a user that the NFT of interest is not authenticated if it is not written to the blockchain.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
[A] minting the validated NFT with legal documents or utilities associated with the validated NFT.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to performance of limitations expressing fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites:
[A] minting the validated NFT with a predetermined number of shares to allow for fractional ownership rights.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “encapsulating trust into NFTs”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“encapsulating trust into NFTs”).
Therefore, dependent claim 14 is deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
“During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322. For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is appropriate … a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” (MPEP 2173.02(I), third ¶)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or the applicant regards as the invention. Such a claim is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the 'metes and bounds' of the protection involved (IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FC 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548).
Claim 8 recites “sensing connection of a cryptocurrency wallet;” It is not clear to what the cryptocurrency wallet is connected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan (US 2020/0005284).
Regarding Claim 1: Vijayan first embodiment discloses: A method of encapsulating trust mechanisms within a non-fungible token (NFT) comprising:
generating a validated NFT based on a positive validation of the item; and {see at least [0105] authentication of NFT (reads on validating NFT) based on public key of content creator (reads on positive validation of item)}
writing the validated NFT to a blockchain. {see at least [0105] minting verified NFT (reads on writing valid NFT on blockchain)}
Vijayan first embodiment does not disclose, however, Vijayan second embodiment discloses:
receiving a request for generating a NFT of an item; {see at least [0009] content creators to mint NFTs (reads on generating an item NFT)}
validating the item; {see at least [0009] verified content creators; [0004] verification of content (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on validating item)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vijayan first embodiment to include the elements of Vijayan second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to making sure just original items (e.g. content) are transacted. In the instant case, Vijayan first embodiment evidently discloses generating a validated NFT and writing it on a blockchain. Vijayan second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of validating the item to be incorporated into the NFT in the same or similar context. Since both generating a validated NFT and writing it on a blockchain, as well as validating the item to be incorporated into the NFT are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vijayan first embodiment, as well as Vijayan second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vijayan. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches two clearly different embodiments within the same cited reference.**
Regarding Claim 2: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Vijayan further discloses:
generating at least one collectible NFT based on the validated NFT; and {see at least [0045], [claim18] NFT plus authentication documents (reads on collectible NFT)}
writing the at least one collectible NFT to the blockchain. {see at least [0045] NFT was minted (reads on writing to blockchain)}
Regarding Claim 3: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Vijayan further discloses:
generating a package of proof based on the validation. {see at least [claim18] signature comparison; cryptographic information (reads on package of proof)}
Regarding Claim 4: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Vijayan further discloses: wherein when the item is a creative work, generating a package of proof comprises:
combining the creative work, supporting documents and validation information into the package of proof. {see at least [claim18] minted by particular content creator (reads on creative work); signature comparison (reads on support document); authenticating the NFT (reads on validation information)}
Regarding Claim 5: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Vijayan further discloses: wherein generating a validated NFT comprises:
transmitting the package of proof to a validated NFT smart contract component; and {see at least [claim18] signature comparison; cryptographic information (reads on package of proof)}
generating the validated NFT based on the package of proof. {see at least [0105] authentication of NFT (reads on validating NFT) based on public key of content creator (reads on positive validation of item); [claim18] signature comparison; cryptographic information (reads on package of proof)}
Regarding Claim 6: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Vijayan further discloses: wherein generating at least one collectible NFT based on the validated NFT comprises:
receiving utility information associated with the validated NFT; and {see at least [0009] digital collectibles (reads on utility information with minted (reads on validated) NFT}
generating a collectible NFT based on the utility information and a package of proof. {see at least [0023] minted NFTs are cryptographically co-signed by (i.e. authenticated) content creator and NFT registry}
Regarding Claim 7: Vijayan first embodiment discloses: A method of authenticating a non-fungible token (NFT) of interest comprising:
receiving a request for authenticating the NFT of interest; {see at least [0105] request to authenticate NFT}
displaying proof to a user of NFT authenticity if the NFT is written to the blockchain and validated. {see at least [0105] minting verified NFT (reads on writing valid NFT on blockchain); [0107] gallery of NFTs … status (reads on authenticity) and information is displayed; [0045] authenticating an NFT (reads on validating); [0065] NFT authenticated independently of the content creator; [0067] verifying the authenticity of the particular NFT (reads on NFT authenticity), [0074]; [0081]; [0086]; [0105]}
Vijayan first embodiment does not disclose, however, Vijayan second embodiment discloses:
determining if the NFT of interest is written to a blockchain and validated; and {see at least [0026] minting NFT to blockchain (reads on writing NFT); [0086] information to NFT blockchain to validate …}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vijayan first embodiment to include the elements of Vijayan second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make sure the NFT is validated/authenticated. In the instant case, Vijayan first embodiment evidently discloses displaying that NFT is authenticated and validated. Vijayan second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of NFT written on blockchain in the same or similar context. Since both displaying that NFT is authenticated and validated, as well as NFT written on blockchain are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vijayan first embodiment, as well as Vijayan second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vijayan. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches two clearly different embodiments within the same cited reference.**
Regarding Claim 8: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Vijayan further discloses: wherein receiving a request for authenticating the NFT comprises:
sensing connection of a cryptocurrency wallet; and {see at least [0088] wallet application to obtain NFTs (reads on connection to wallets)}
searching the cryptocurrency wallet for the NFT of interest. {see at least [0045] store NFT in wallet (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on searching the wallet for NFT)}
Regarding Claim 9: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Vijayan further discloses:
providing notification to a user that the NFT of interest is not authenticated if it is not written to the blockchain. {see at least [0105] minting verified NFT (reads on writing valid NFT on blockchain); [0107] gallery of NFTs … status (reads on authenticity) and information is displayed. Vijayan fails to explicitly disclose the negative claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that a non-authenticated condition will be opposite to the authenticated condition, which is disclosed by Vijayan – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}}
Regarding Claim 13: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Vijayan further discloses: wherein generating a validated NFT based on a positive validation of the item comprises:
minting the validated NFT with legal documents or utilities associated with the validated NFT. {see at least [0045], [claim18] NFT plus authentication documents (reads on legal documents)}
Regarding Claim 14: Vijayan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Vijayan further discloses: wherein generating a validated NFT based on a positive validation of the item comprises:
minting the validated NFT with a predetermined number of shares to allow for fractional ownership rights. {see at least [0086] In several embodiments, NFTs can be issued to multiple users by issuing a limited (or unlimited) number of fungible tokens that represent fractional ownership (or shared possession) of a particular NFT}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20130080226 A1 Keith; Christopher SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING REWARDS AND ONLINE ADVERTISING IN AN ONLINE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT - Embodiments of the invention are directed to creating an online social environment that allows users to obtain, own, and use one or more tokens whose value is derived from their presence within an online social environment. A user is given a single deal reward token based on the mapping of that token to a deal reward provided to a user. A user must own at least one deal reward tokens linked to a primary prize in order to obtain that prize. A user owning at least one deal reward token linked to a primary prize is given that prize. A user is proved a system for conducting transactions with other users related to their owned deal reward tokens. A single advertising source is associated with each of a user's deal reward tokens. An advertising source is provided the online technical means of sending continuous targeted advertisement material to the user associated with each deal reward token linked to that advertising source. A user is provided a system for displaying the continuous targeted advertisement material provided by the advertising source associated with that user's deal reward token.
US 20230214792 A1 LEE; Brendan COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED SYSTEMS AND METHODS - The invention resides in a blockchain-implemented method of operating a system having a device, the method comprising: using, processing and/or generating a blockchain transaction (MTx) having: one or more token-related outputs (T-UTXO), each of which represents a respective token (T) issued by a Token Issuer (TI) and specifies a) at least one of the operation, status and data that determines the configuration of the device; b) a quantity of token-related cryptocurrency (TRC) associated with the respective token (T). The operation, status and data that determines the configuration and/or status of the device can be determined from instructions on the output of a respective token's blockchain transaction. Generally, assets or resources can be tracked and/or managed using one or more blockchain transactions in which token-related outputs, representing tokens, function to determine the status of an asset.
US 20170132633 A1 WHITEHOUSE; Harry T. SYSTEMS AND METHODS PROVIDING PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS - Systems and methods to implement a payment platform for users using financial accounts support making payments using a (client) computing device. One aspect of the disclosure relates to systems and methods to effectuate performance of payments and/or secured payment transactions. Payments may refer to the transfer of value between users. Payment transactions may refer to transactions that form at least a part of a payment.
US 20220156754 A1 MacArthur; Robert S. et al. SECURE TOKEN-BASED EXCHANGE OF POLLUTION CREDITS FOR THE REDUCTION OF WORLDWIDE POLLUTION - In one embodiment, a computing device may receive carbon emissions acquisition data indicative of an allowance of carbon emissions. The computing device may generate token data based on the received carbon emissions acquisition data, wherein the token data is associated with a portion of the allowance of carbon emissions and includes a use indicator and an ownership indicator. The computing device may store the token data to a distributed transaction ledger, wherein a redemption transaction that updates the distributed transaction ledger is configured to alter the use indicator of the token data.
US 20040054629 A1 de Jong, Eduard et al. Provisioning for digital content access control - A method and apparatus for digital content access control method comprises receiving a digital content request comprising a request for digital content, determining whether a user associated with the digital content request is authorized to access the digital content, creating an authenticated digital content request if the user is authorized to access the digital content and sending the authenticated digital content request for use in accessing the digital content stored by a content repository.
US 20190303887 A1 Wright; Craig Steven et al. UNIVERSAL TOKENISATION SYSTEM FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED CRYPTOCURRENCIES - A method of creating, redeeming and transferring tokens associated with tokens on a peer-to-peer distributed ledger. The method includes including metadata associated with the token in a redeem script, wherein the redeem script is associated with a transaction of cryptocurrency on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger. One aspect of the invention provides a method of issuing and/or transferring a token, comprising the steps of generating a blockchain transaction (Tx) having an output (TxO) related to a quantity of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, and a hash of a redeem script. The redeem script comprises metadata which in turn comprises a token. The token is a representation of, or a reference to, a tokenised entity. The redeem script also comprises at least one (preferably two or more) public cryptographic keys. The metadata is provided in the redeem script at a location which is designated in the underlying blockchain protocol as a location for a cryptographic key.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks to the Claims Objections.
The objections are withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “As will be understood, each of the claims include interaction with computer technology and is an improvement to the computer technology.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that Applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “It is respectfully submitted that writing a validated NFT to a blockchain is not something that is abstract and not something that can be performed mentally.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims recite subject matter that transforms the blockchain itself so as to allow for improved processing such as to determine if selected NFTs have been validated in order to encapsulate trust mechanisms.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that Applicant defers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(c): “Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.” A careful reading of the MPEP 2106.05(c) will reveal that the transformation/reduction refers to matter in the life sciences domain, rather than to a blockchain.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims 5, 9 being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
After further considerations, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claim 8 being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits “Connection of a cryptocurrency wallet will be well understood by one skilled in the art and there are a plurality of applications that enable cryptocurrency wallets to digital applications or to computer systems. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that one skilled in the art would be able to understand what is meant by the subject matter of "sensing connection of a cryptocurrency wallet" in the context of the claims.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Examiner cannot understand Applicant’s arguments. Applicant is herewith advised to change language of the claim in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Vijayan is silent with respect to the subject matter of validating the item as Vijayan only assumes that if content is associated with a verified content creator, it is validated which may not always be the case.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Vijayan discloses:
validating the item; {see at least [0009] verified content creators; [0004] verification of content (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on validating item)}
Thus, Vijayan discloses the claim limitation.
Applicant submits “It is respectfully submitted that Vijayan is also silent with respect to the subject matter of independent Claim 7 which relies on a validation of the NFT and not the creator of the NFT.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Vijayan discloses:
displaying proof to a user of NFT authenticity if the NFT is written to the blockchain and validated. {see at least [0105] minting verified NFT (reads on writing valid NFT on blockchain); [0107] gallery of NFTs … status (reads on authenticity) and information is displayed; [0045] authenticating an NFT (reads on validating); [0065] NFT authenticated independently of the content creator; [0067] verifying the authenticity of the particular NFT (reads on NFT authenticity), [0074]; [0081]; [0086]; [0105]}
Thus, Vijayan discloses the claim limitation.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698