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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on December 25, 2025.
Claims 1-16 have been examined in this application.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on October 21, 2025 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 29, 2025, regarding claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are withdrawn in view of the extensive amendments made.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 10-22, regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not amount to an abstract idea categorized under mental and certain methods of organizing human activity categories because claim 1 is directed to a “computer-implemented system that integrates blockchain monitoring, NFT ownership validation, and real-time payment authorization control, which are neither a mental process nor a business practice.” Id., 11. Applicant also argues that it would not be possible to carry out the claim limitations using mental processes because NFT validation is “inherently computer-based.” Which cannot be done in a human mind or with use of a pen and paper. Id., 12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are in fact determined to amount to an abstract idea of processing of a transaction based on rules and monitoring ownership transfer data without significantly more. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the abstract idea is clearly grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity. Likewise, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims can further be categorized under mental processes because the claims recite basic functions that a human mind can carry and with the use of a pen-and-paper. NFTs are nothing more than certified ownership elements which amount to a document or an image that a user can certify using their mind and pen-and-paper as belonging to a certain person, include the person’s information, and safely guard or store this certification of ownership until it is required to be modified as a result of a transfer request or sale. As will be discussed later, the additional elements in the claims that the Applicant argues are simply utilized to automate the abstract idea; to apply the abstract idea. The claimed scope is based on a determination of whether a user has a certain ownership of an NFT and based on that determining whether the user can conduct a transaction and further monitor user ownership of the user’s NFT. That’s the basis of the claimed scope as a whole. As a result, the groupings identified as being captured by the claimed scope are valid and clearly apply to the instant claims.
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements to amount to a practical application. Applicant also argues that some elements were not considered as additional elements, wherein these elements amount to a practical application; id, 14. Applicant further argues that the claims capture a gating/control mechanism rather than manipulating data. Applicant then argues the points that the limitations as a whole are structurally and functionally linked a specific structure to allow the claimed scope to be carried out as a whole. Finally, Applicant argues that any alleged abstract idea is limited because eligibility criteria is secured as transaction criteria in NFT profiles, eligibility depends on NFT record, a listener system that monitors the distributed ledger and a specific action based on the transaction determination have to be carried out as a whole.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to include addition elements that are significant enough to alter any abstract idea into patent eligibility. Indeed the claims have been amended to clarify the scope of the claims and include a clearer recitation of what Applicants deem as their invention. However, the amendments still capture high level operations directed to the argued points. For example, keeping a database of NFTs is high level, securing the NFT information using high level encryption is clearly high level, communicating data between entities is high level, settling a transaction between entities based on rules is high level, and placing an entity to monitor for change is high level. The claims clearly recite conditional language such as “upon” and “or” which render the claims a lot more general than Applicant argues. The Specification does provide a problem and seems to provide also the technical solution but the claims fail to incorporate said solution is a way as a required; MPEP 2106.04(d)(III). The claims fail to provide technical details on the NFT, ownership, transaction settlement, and monitoring. These elements and all the elements argued as recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements argued as not being considered is not persuasive because the additional elements argues are not deemed to amount to additional elements. Even if said additional elements argued by the Applicant are considered as additional elements, they fail to address the above counter arguments and amount to a practical application because they are recited at a high level, performing functions that are generic functions carried out by any off-the-shelf computer and amounting to merely being utilized to automate the abstract idea. The functions include receiving, generating, storing, analyzing, monitoring and determining an outcome. The additional elements automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More so, the claimed abstract idea amounts to a mere linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of transaction settlement using devices and rules and generated payment credentials. The claimed NFT, blockchain, monitoring, or transaction settlement is not improved nor do the claims capture any improvement to a technical field or technology. Applicant should elaborate on the architecture by focusing on incorporating technical operations into the claims that would answer the question of how the execution of the query on the token database is carried out and how the monitoring is carried out. Sending and receiving requests, sending and receiving data, storing the data, and pulling up the date before executing a transaction are the exact definition of an abstract idea that is characterized under the identified two categories of abstract idea. What’s left in the claim is the monitoring and generating ownership updated data, which at the moment is done at a high level, failing to include any technical elements on how said limitations are carried out. See Example 46, Appendix 1 of the October 2019 Update, pages 30-41. Merely reciting that actions can be carried out automatically or that actions can be carried out securely does not provide enough to amount to a practical application. The technical details / elements that result in a technical solution to a technical problem must be in the claim at such a detailed manner that they amount to a practical application.
Applicant argues the claims amount to a practical application and a result, the claims need not be addressed with regard to Step 2B. However, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because they include the additional elements argued that result in a technical solution to a technical problem.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the additional elements in the claims, when addressed in combination with the claim as a whole are deemed to be recited at a high level of generality, merely capturing basic computer functions that can be carried out by a generic computer, thus failing to amount to a practical application or significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
The claims, 1-16, contain conditional language reflecting two different outcomes. Examiner proposes focusing on one of the two conditions and elaborating on the listening system. A review of proper antecedent basis for token, token profile, blockchain wallet, and account is also requested.
Claim 9 recites a memory and instructions for each one of the three entities. The memory and instructions must be recited in a way to link them to each of one of the entities to remove any indefiniteness as to whether the claimed structure is the same for all three entities. For example, the claim can read a first memory including first instructions, when executed by a first processor of a merchant system, causes the first processor to… Likewise, the claim can read a second memory storing secondary instructions, when executed by a second processor of a processing server, causes the second processor to perform operations including…
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-16 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing of a transaction based on rules and monitoring ownership transfer data without significantly more without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. the abstract idea is further characterized under mental process, including concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and performing these concepts using pen and paper. Receiving a request to generate data is deemed as amounting to a user receiving a verbal or written request to generate said profile, the profile including the claimed information. Likewise, a human can create the specific profile on paper or in their mind and include any sort of data with the profile. The human can store this profile in their mind or on paper (table with all kinds of information on it about the profile and other information that would be related to a peer-to-peer human network). storing an account to the profile is also nothing more than recording on paper how much someone has in cash and associating it with their profile. After the above is done, the claims then focus on a transaction, which can be done by a human mind using the profile and recorded cash amount available. The transaction is executed if the user has enough funds or it is not executed if they do not have enough funds, logically, and based on the token profile information. Finally, a user can monitor if ownership of a product token is changed by relying on a continuously updated table, on paper, which a peer-to-peer network of humans utilize to keep track of ownership of said product tokens. A human can generate the notification of transfer based on the monitoring of the chart/table. As you can see from the above, the claims are very high level and capture basic concepts of product ownership and transaction settlement. The transaction settlement is a key feature of the claimed scope even though it is captured in lesser limitations than the other elements. Transaction settlement based on rules explicitly highlights / relates to the above identified abstract idea grouping/sub-grouping.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A method for account and transaction blocking for payment transactions using validation of non-fungible tokens, comprising:
after a non-fungible token is registered on a blockchain of a blockchain network, receiving, by a receiver of… [a first entity], a token profile generation request from an external entity system, said token profile generation request including at least a token identifier and one or more transaction criteria that indicate effects of the non-fungible token on payment transactions:
creating, by… [the first entity], a specific token profile for the non- fungible token, said specific token profile including the token identifier and the one or more transaction criteria that indicate effects of the non-fungible token on payment transactions
storing, in a token database of the… [first entity], the specific token profile among a plurality of token profiles associated with respective non-fungible tokens;
storing, in an account database of the… [first entity], an account profile associated with a transaction account, the account profile including at least an account identifier, a payment account number, and a wallet identifier associated with a blockchain wallet;
receiving, by a receiver of the… [first entity], from a merchant system, an authorization request for a payment transaction including at least the payment account number and one or more transaction data values;
executing…[by the first entity] a query on the token database to identify any token profile of the plurality of token profiles that includes transaction criteria that are applicable to the one or more transaction data values included in the received authorization request;
based on said query, identifying… [by the first entity] the specific token profile of the non-fungible token;
upon identifying the specific token profile of the non-fungible token, determining… [by the first entity] whether the blockchain wallet associated with the wallet identifier included in the account profile has ownership of the non-fungible token;
processing… [by the first entity] the payment transaction by (i) returning an authorization response… indicating decline of the payment transaction if the… wallet is determined to not have ownership of the non-fungible token, or (ii) forwarding the authorization request to a payment network for processing if the… wallet is determined to have ownership of the non-fungible token; and
monitoring, by a listening system in communication with the processing server, the blockchain to identify changes in ownership for non-fungible tokens; and
generating… an ownership transfer notification for each identified change in ownership.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a receiver of a processing server, a processor of the processing server, a token database of the processing server, an account database of the processing server, a receiver of the processing server, a listening system, a merchant system, merchant memory storing instructions, merchant system processor, and the same memory and processor for the processing server and listening system.
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as manipulating data, including storing data, sending and receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome based on analyzing the data. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty Over Prior-Art
The claims are novel over the prior art as a result of the architectural configuration claimed and how the entities communicate with one another to determine NFT ownership and purchasing determination using said listening system. With that said, NFT purchasing and validation is well settled in the art. See Internation Application Publication WO 2024011057 to Shankar et al. (Shankar) which teaches such concepts.
PGPUB 2024/0015030 to Cameron explicitly recites all of the claimed limitations, however, the reference fails to teach a listening system which is a standalone server that monitors the blockchain network for ownership of NFTs. Cameron teaches that the user is associated with a blockchain wallet, has ownership of an NFT, and allows access to products based on the NFT ownership, and even teaches using a smart contract to monitor transfer of NFTs. However, the reference does not explicitly recite a standalone entity that monitors NFT transfers as claimed in the last two limitations shown in Figure 1 of the instant Application. Cameron at Paragraph 0039 recites “Advantageously, example systems and methods are described below with improved security of NFT-gated e-commerce interactions. To protect privacy and prevent data leakage or replay attacks, the e-commerce system and user device may minimize the data exchanged over a communication channel. In one example, the user device may avoid sending a public key, e.g. a wallet address, to the e-commerce system. Instead, the user device may send a digital signature to the e-commerce system and the e-commerce system may derive the associated public key from the digital signature and the message that was signed. In some digital signature schemes it may be possible to derive a public key from a message and a digital signature of that message. In some digital signature schemes, more than one message and more than one digital signature may be needed to derive the public key. In some situations, derivation of the public key may produce two or more candidate public keys. By querying the blockchain network for a wallet address that corresponds to the derived public key, the e-commerce system thereby validates that the derived public key corresponds to the private key used in the digital signature and corresponds to an existing wallet address. In finding a matching address, the system effectively verifies that the user device has control over the private key associated with that wallet address and the user thus owns or controls the digital assets held by that wallet address. Advantageously, the e-commerce system does not need to be provided with the public key in advance and the user device does not need to reveal its association with that public key during the e-commerce session. The user device may provide just the digital signature without retrieving and providing wallet information that might otherwise be associated with other personal data revealed during the e-commerce section, such as during a checkout or shipping phase.”
Other references also teach validation and analysis, see PGPUB 20230108983 to Vosseller et al. teaches provide digital content to users through use of nonfungible tokens (NFTs). This is performed by leveraging a blockchain such that digital content associated with an item is made available to encourage the user to interact with NFTs on the service provider platform (e.g., discounts, NFT listing functionality, automatic initiation of NFT transfers, and so forth) based on a user's possession of the NFT. See Figures 2-3 and related text.
PGPUB 2024/0338692 to Jhamb et al. teaches processing a blockchain transaction using a payment card and a linked blockchain wallet includes: receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction initiated using the payment card, wherein the authorization request includes transaction data, the transaction data including at least a payment card number, a transaction amount, and a destination address; identifying the linked blockchain wallet based on an association between the linked blockchain wallet and the payment card number; verifying compliance with one or more restrictions on use of the linked blockchain wallet based on at least the transaction data and a transaction history of the linked blockchain wallet; and executing a smart contract stored on a blockchain of a blockchain network associated with the linked blockchain wallet, where at least the transaction amount and destination address are provided as input for the smart contract.
The combination of these references fail to disclose the limitations as claimed in combination and in an obviousness manner. Therefore, the claims filed 12/30/2025 are therefore allowable as a whole over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights