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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/7/2025, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: the asset comprising the address of the first real estate property / entering and storing information related the first real estate property on the first webpage.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of creating a webpage accessible over the Internet, and establishing a digital asset (‘establishing a digital asset ‘). Creating a webpage accessible over the Internet does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Establishing a digital asset does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, creating a webpage accessible over the Internet does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use, and establishing a digital asset does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of transferring ownership of the digital asset / recording digital asset sale data on a blockchain / the digital asset comprising a NFT / using machine readable code that , when scanned, links to the first webpage / scanning the machine-readable code to access the first web page / using a QR code / a server / storing data on a server / a first webpage comprising a security system and passing through the security system before the entering and storing of data. Transferring ownership of the digital asset / recording the digital asset sale data on a blockchain and the digital asset comprising a NFT do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Using machine readable code to access data / scanning the machine -readable code to access data, and using a QR code to access data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The server represents a generic computing element that is recited a high level of generality; storing data on a server represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. it represents a well known and commonly used means of storing data within a digital computing environment, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. Using a webpage security system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878).
As per Claim 1, Slavin teaches:
establishing a digital asset associated with a first real estate property, the digital asset comprising the address of the first real estate property; (at least para 5, 18, 21 – real estate property address)
Mizelle further teaches:
creating a first webpage accessible over the internet; and entering and storing information related the first real estate property on the first webpage. (at least para 25)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, with Mizelle’s features of creating a first webpage accessible over the internet; and entering and storing information related the first real estate property on the first webpage, to display real estate property details on webpages – Mizelle, abstract and para 25. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 3, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
the first real estate property comprises a building. (Slavin, at least para 21)
As per Claim 4, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
the first real estate property comprises a commercial building. (Slavin, at least para 21)
As per Claim 5, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
the first real estate property comprises a residential building. (Slavin, at least para 21)
As per Claim 10, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
The digital asset comprises a non-fungible token (NFT). (Slavin, at least: abstract)
As per Claim 16, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
the first webpage is stored on a server owned and operated by a custodian. (Mizelle, at least: para 25, 46-47, 3-4 – real estate professionals/agents [custodian])
As per Claim 17, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
the first webpage is hosted on a website owned and operated by the custodian. (Mizelle, at least: para 25, 46-47, 3-4 – real estate professionals/agents [custodian])
As per Claim 20, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach:
The website hosts a plurality of other webpages in addition to the first webpage. (Mizelle, at least: para 46, 47)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878) in even further view of Xiao (CN 109101607 B).
As per Claim 2, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach creating a webpage and establishing a digital asset associated with a first real estate property, as noted above, and Xiao teaches:
The creating step temporally takes place after the digital asset establishing step. (at least: claim 25)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, combined with Mizelle’s existing features, with Xiao’s feature of the creating step temporally taking place after the digital asset establishing step, in order to generate webpage data associated with crawled data, including blockchain data – Xiao, at least: abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878) in even further view of Priebatsch (20230298114).
As per Claim 6, Priebatsch further teaches:
The method further comprises the step of transferring ownership of the digital asset. (at least: para 41)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, combined with Mizelle’s existing features, with Priebatsch’s feature of transferring ownership of the digital asset, to create a verifiable record of asset ownership and asset valuation – Priebatsch, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Priebatsch teach:
The transferring step comprises a sale of the digital asset from one party to another, the sale being recorded on a blockchain. (Priebatsch, at least para 41)
As per Claim 8, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Priebatsch teach:
the establishing step is completed by a custodian and the sale takes place between the custodian and the owner of the first real estate property. (Priebatsch, at least para 23, 26)
As per Claim 9, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Priebatsch teach:
the sale of the digital asset is completed at the same time as the sale of the first real estate property. (Priebatsch, at least para 23, 26)
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878) in even further view of Roffey (20230259936).
As per Claim 11, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach an NFT and a first webpage, as noted above, and Roffey further teaches:
The NFT further comprises a machine-readable code that, when scanned, links to the first webpage. (at least: para 28, 42)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, combined with Mizelle’s existing features, with Roffey’s feature of the NFT further comprises a machine-readable code that, when scanned, links to the first webpage, to transact NFTs using QR codes – Roffey, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Roffey teach:
Comprising the step of scanning the machine-readable code to access the first webpage. (Roffey, at least: para 28, 42)
As per Claim 13, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Roffey teach:
The scanning step comes before the entering and storing information step. (Slavin in view of Mizelle teach the claimed entering and storing information steps, as noted above, and Roffey further teaches the scanning step coming before the entering of data/storing of data : at least para 28, 33)
As per Claim 14, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Roffey teach:
The machine-readable code is a quick-response (QR) code. (Roffey, at least: para 28, 42)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878) in further view of Roffey (20230259936), in even further view of Chen (CN 115689742 A).
As per Claim 15, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Roffey teach an NFT and a first real estate property, as noted above, as well as the NFT including images – Slavin, para 15. Chen further teaches:
The NFT further comprises an image of the first real estate property. (at least: page 4 – “the NFT may include, but is not limited to, various forms of digital assets such as video, virtual real estate, images, art, or twinning of physical assets in the digital world”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, combined with Mizelle’s existing features, combined with Roffey’s existing features, with Chen’s feature of the NFT further comprises an image of the first real estate property, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Slavin (20230316439) in further view of Mizelle (20230116878) in further view of Berkovitz (20140090021).
As per Claim 18, Slavin in view of Mizelle teach a first webpage and storing information on the first webpage, as noted above, and Berkovitz teaches:
The first webpage comprises a security system and the method further comprises the step of passing through the security system before the entering and storing information on the first webpage step. (at least para 14, 22, fig2 and associated/related text)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Slavin’s existing features, combined with Mizelle’s existing features, with Berkovitz’s feature of the first webpage comprises a security system and the method further comprises the step of passing through the security system before the entering and storing information on the first webpage step, to provide a website authentication and identity system – Berkovitz, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 19, Slavin in view of Mizelle in further view of Berkovitz teach:
The security system comprises creating a profile on the website comprising a username and password and the first webpage is only accessible after entering the username and password. (Berkovitz, at least para 14, 22, fig2 and associated/related text)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/3/2025