DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 12/09/2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duke (2021/0158341).
As to claims 6 and 10: Duke teaches a physical management architecture for digital asset, comprising:
a physical object printed from a digital asset by a printing device of a digital asset management center (paragraph 0067), wherein the physical object embodies the digital asset in tangible form as a unique physical collectible item (unique physical object explained in paragraphs 0016-0019, and the physical card is a tangible form which embodies a digital asset), wherein the physical object comprises a first wireless sensing chip that is configured to generate a first signal, and comprises a first memory element, the first memory element stores a first information and a first internal code, the first information and the first internal code are embedded in the first signal generated by the first wireless sensing chip (paragraph 0041, claim 9, figure 2, 202 communicating with 206, unique identifier);
a guarantee card, being a physical article separate from the physical object (paragraphs 0004 and 0005 plainly describe the second object and the first object as different physical objects) comprising a surface on which basic information related to the physical object manufactured from the digital asset is recorded (element 102, 204 and 304, figures 2 and 3, wherein the stripe is expressed on the surface of the card, and wherein the digital information is recorded in physical form, the digital asset information being the identification information), and comprising a second wireless sensor chip that is configured to generate a second signal, and comprises a second memory element (paragraph 0040);
wherein the second memory element stores a second information and a second internal code, the second information and the second internal code are embedded in the second signal generated by the second wireless sensing chip (paragraphs 0040-0043), wherein the second internal code is different from the first internal code, and the digital asset management center pre-determinedly establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the first internal code and the second internal code during manufacturing (paragraph 0082, wherein the unique fingerprint on the first and second objects are known by the payment device); and
a computing device, configured in the digital asset management center, connected to a signal reader, obtained the first internal code by the signal reader reading the first signal generated by the first wireless sensing chip, and obtained the second internal code by the signal reader reading the second signal generated by the second wireless sensing chip (figures 2, 3, 108);
wherein, during an authenticity verification process of the physical object manufactured from the digital asset, the computing device determines the authenticity status of the physical object by comparing whether the first internal code corresponds to the second internal code (paragraphs 0021-0022, wherein a first image is taken by a smartphone and a second image is taken by a server computer);
when the computing device declares the physical object as an authenticated item only when the comparison confirms the predetermined one-to-one correspondence between the first internal code and the second internal code (paragraphs 0049-0055, figure 4, showing the user selecting the physical object to be created with the unique identifier, which is considered permission from a creator or owner of a digital asset, paragraph 0082 explaining the match); otherwise, the computing device declares the physical object as an unauthenticated item when the computing device determines that the first internal code does not correspond to the second internal code (paragraph 0073, wherein step 610 is after the one-to-one comparison, seen in figure 6).
As to claim 7: Duke teaches that the first wireless sensing chip and the second wireless sensing chip are a radio frequency identification chip or a near field communication chip, respectively (paragraph 0040).
As to claim 8: Duke teaches that the digital asset is represented by a non-fungible token (paragraph 0040, unique meaning non-fungible).
As to claim 9: Duke teaches that the computing device and the signal reader are configured in the digital asset management center (108).
Response to Amendment
Claims 6 and 10 are amended to include language about that the physical object embodies the digital asset in tangible form as a unique physical collectible item.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at several points that Duke only discloses a single three-dimensional object. Examiner disagrees; Duke straightforwardly teaches two three-dimensional objects compared for authentication. Duke explains the second object as an ”authentication object that is assigned to the user” (paragraph 0003) wherein an authentication object is fabricated by a three-dimensional printer (paragraph 0056) among many other embodiments. Duke further explains that “the first object is an authentication token” (paragraph 0066) wherein “the authentication token is generally fabricated, for example using a three-dimensional printer”. The first object and the second object are uniquely fabricated, and the terminology used for these objects in Duke differs as an “authentication token” and “authentication object”, which are three-dimensional and separate objects. Applicant further asserts that these objects both do not include an electronic chip. However, Duke explains that the three-dimensional objects include both a unique area of an object and a chip (paragraph 0016). As is such, examiner disagrees with assertions relating to this point. Applicant argues that the present application is for transforming an NFT into a tangible collectible object, whereas Duke is directed to authenticating a user of a payment device. Examiner does not disagree, but also does not find limitations directed toward NFTs in the claims. Applicant also makes arguments directed toward “centralized code pairing”, which is terminology not found in the claims. Examiner believes that the limitations of two codes being pre-paired and then checked off of each other is taught by Duke, as shown in claim rejections above. Although Duke is for a different purpose as the one envisioned by the applicant for the application, examiner is forced to examine the limitations present in the claims, and as is such, Duke does teach comparing two codes for one-to-one correspondence, broadly known as checking for a match.
Applicant argues that “embodying a digital asset” is a substantive limitation, not mere printing. Examiner contends that the terminology “embodies the digital asset in tangible form as a unique physical collectible item” is read upon by the teachings of Duke, which has been expressed in the arguments dated 09/10/2025. Examiner argues that the limitations being assumed by this terminology are beyond the scope of a broad interpretation of the claims. Applicant further expresses that the printing has to be “controlled”, “mandatory dual-component pairing”, and other such limitations that are beyond the scope of the terminology being used.
It is clear to the examiner that the arguments from both sides are becoming repetitive and exhausting, and that amendments predominantly reworded existing limitations instead of pointing toward existing differences between applicant’s intended invention and Duke’s teachings. For the purposes of expedited prosecution and time savings for both involved parties, examiner invites applicant to reach out the examiner for an interview to clarify positions.
As is such, examiner has applied newly rewritten objections depending on Duke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30-7:00. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. 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.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876