DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3 – 20 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “Important” in claim 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Important” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term Important is subjective in nature. What one person may find or deem important; another person may not find important. The specification fails to explicitly disclose or define what is meant by important or what exactly important encompasses to fully determine the metes and bounds of the term and claims.
Claim 4, 15 and 19 recites the limitation "the first important event" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 12 and 17 - 21 are drawn to a device and CRM.
Claims 13 – 17 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1, 3 - 12 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A device, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one computer readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the device to perform operations comprising:
accessing metadata of a non-fungible token (NFT) stored on a blockchain, wherein the metadata describes a plurality of events associated with a plurality of owners of a digital asset, wherein events of the plurality of events occurred while owners of the plurality of owners played a video game using a plurality of different video game platforms;
providing the metadata to a machine learning (ML) model trained to identify important events associated with NFTs;
predicting, using the ML model and based on the metadata, which events of the plurality of events are important events, wherein the important events comprise a first event of the plurality of events and a second event of the plurality of events, wherein the first event is associated with a first owner of the plurality of owners and occurred while the first owner played the video game executing on a first video game platform of the plurality of different video game platforms, wherein the second event is associated with a second owner of the plurality of owners and occurred while the second owner played the video game executing on a second video game platform of the plurality of different video game platforms, wherein the first video game platform is different from the second video game platform, and wherein the second owner is different from the first owner; and presenting, on a display, a presentation depicting the important events.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the collection of NFT metadata, analyzing it to determine interesting aspects regarding the NFT and presenting the aspects upon a display. This represents a concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): devices, processors, storage mediums, machine learning models, video game platforms and displays.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed devices, processors, storage mediums, machine learning models and displays. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicants own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
This disclosure relates generally to computer ecosystems including aspects of consumer electronics (CE) device networks such as but not limited to computer game networks. A system herein may include server and client components which may be connected over a network such that data may be exchanged between the client and server components. The client components may include one or more computing devices including game consoles such as Sony PlayStation or a game console made by Microsoft or Nintendo or other manufacturer, virtual reality (VR) headsets, augmented reality (AR) headsets, portable televisions (e.g., smart TVs, Internet-enabled TVs), portable computers such as laptops and tablet computers, and other mobile devices including smart phones and additional examples discussed below. These client devices may operate with a variety of operating environments. For example, some of the client computers may employ, as examples, Linux operating systems, operating systems from Microsoft, or a Unix operating system, or operating systems produced by Apple, Inc., or Google. These operating environments may be used to execute one or more browsing programs, such as a browser made by Microsoft or Google or Mozilla or other browser program that can access websites hosted by the Internet servers discussed below. Also, an operating environment according to present principles may be used to execute one or more computer game programs.
Servers and/or gateways may include one or more processors executing instructions that configure the servers to receive and transmit data over a network such as the Internet. Or a client and server can be connected over a local intranet or a virtual private network. A server Nor controller may be instantiated by a game console such as a Sony PlayStation, a personal computer, etc.
Present principles may employ various machine learning models, including deep learning models. Machine learning models consistent with present principles may use various algorithms trained in ways that include supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, reinforcement learning, feature learning, self-learning, and other forms of learning. Examples of such algorithms, which can be implemented by computer circuitry, include one or more neural networks, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN), a recurrent neural network (RNN), and a type of RNN known as a long short-term memory (LSTM) network. Support vector machines (SVM) and Bayesian networks also may be considered to be examples of machine learning models.
As understood herein, performing machine learning may therefore involve accessing and then training a model on training data to enable the model to process further data to make inferences. An artificial neural network/artificial intelligence model trained through machine learning may thus include an input layer, an output layer, and multiple hidden layers in between that that are configured and weighted to make inferences about an appropriate output.
Information may be exchanged over a network between the clients and servers. To this end and for security, servers and/or clients can include firewalls, load balancers, temporary storages, and proxies, and other network infrastructure for reliability and security. One or more servers may form an apparatus that implement methods of providing a secure community such as an online social website to network members.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8 – 16 and 18 -21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al (US 11,154,783) in view of Castinado et al (US 2023/0009908).
As per claim 1, Koch discloses:
at least one processor; and
at least one computer readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor causes the device to perform the operations comprising: accessing metadata of a non-fungible token (NFT) stored on a blockchain, wherein the metadata describes a plurality of events associated with a plurality of owners of a digital asset, wherein events of the plurality of events occurred while owners of the plurality of owners played a video game using a plurality of different video game platforms; (Koch discloses at least one NFT that represents a digital asset from a computer game wherein the NFT is associated with metadata pertaining to noteworthy aspects of the NFT, such as ownership, or item usage information and achievements) (Koch 5:25 – 45; 7:57 – 8:15; 17:23-18:6)
providing the metadata … to identify important events associated with NFTs; (Koch discloses the providing of metadata that comprises noteworthy or important events associated with the NFT’s (Koch 7:57-8:15)
…based on the metadata, which events of the plurality of events are important events, wherein the important events comprise a first event of the plurality of events and a second event of the plurality of events, (Kock discloses the storing of metadata on a blockchain that comprises noteworthy events that are associated with an item that is used by at least a first and second owner, wherein the item can be transferred between the first and second owner) (Koch 25:29 – 26:6; 26:63 – 27:11) wherein the first event is associated with a first owner of the plurality of owners and occurred while the first owner played the video game executing on a first video game platform of the plurality of different video game platforms, wherein the second event is associated with a second owner of the plurality of owners and occurred while the second owner played the video game executing on a second video game platform of the plurality of different video game platforms, wherein the first video game platform is different from the second video game platform, and wherein the second owner is different from the first owner; and… (Koch discloses the use of metadata that indicated important aspects regarding the lifetime of the NFT. (Koch 7:65 – 8:21) Koch further discloses that the stored data relating to a video recording of the game event may have certain information removed from the stored clip (Koch 18:3 – 6). Koch further discloses the storing of information or metadata, related to the virtual item, that comprises at least one or multiple player’s achieving an accomplishment in the game utilizing the virtual item (Koch 22:21 – 43) wherein the virtual item is used by multiple players of different game platforms (Koch 5:46 – 6:9; 26:63 – 27:1). Koch further discloses that the history of noteworthy events associated with the NFT such the history of events that occur when owned by a first player are stored in a blockchain and associated with the NFT even when owned by a second player (Koch17:23 – 56; 26:63 – 27:11)
presenting, on a display, a presentation depicting the important events (Koch discloses the presenting on a display of the interesting past aspects or noteworthy events of the NFT such as item usage history, ownership) (Koch 17:23 – 18:6, 22:14 – 43)
Koch fails to specifically disclose utilizing machine learning trained to identify and/or predict important events.. Koch fails to specifically disclose:
…to a machine learning (ML) model trained…
predicting using the ML model…
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Castinado discloses a system that utilizes ML models to determine (akin to predict) market value of NFT’s that are stored on the blockchain by analyzing received NFT metadata to determine “important” aspects about NFT wherein the data that the ML engine analyzes is metadata comprising ownership, rights, usage, color, location, time and user activity (Castinado 0041, 0042 – 0045, 0046). Castinado further discloses the provision of a portal to present the ML generated analytics regarding the NFT’s to the user) (Castinado 0066, 0067, 0070)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Koch in view of Castinado to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by utilizing machine learning to efficiently analyze and determine important data regarding an NFT such as ownership or activity usage of the NFT that may be viewed as important to view by an end user. This would enable the end user to determine the how valuable the NFT is based upon the history of the NFT (Castinado 0040)
As per claim 3, wherein the important events are predicted by the ML model on from some but not all of the metadata of the NFT (Combination of Koch in view of Castinado, wherein Koch discloses the use of metadata that indicated important aspects regarding the lifetime of the NFT. Koch does not state that the stored metadata is all past aspects of the lifetime of the NFT) (Koch 7:65 – 8:21) (Castinado discloses the use of ML models to analyze at least a portion of metadata associated with an NFT) (Castinado 0043)
As per claim 4, Koch discloses:
wherein the first important event relates to whether an initial acquirer of the NFT won or lost an in-game task, and wherein the presentation indicates whether the initial acquirer of the NFT won or lost the in-game task. (Koch discloses the viewing of interesting past events associated with the virtual item such as participation in a game event where a boss was defeated) (Koch 25:29 – 65)
As per claim 5, Koch discloses: wherein the presentation indicates where on a game map an initial acquirer of the at least one NFT was located during an in-game task. (Koch discloses that a game map can be displayed) (Koch 11:6 – 20, 18:3 – 6)
As per claim 8, Koch discloses: wherein the NFT is stored as an image file. (Koch 26:23 – 65)
As per claim 9, Koch discloses: presenting , on the display, a user interface (UI) that indicates one or more owners of the NFT. (Koch 12:5 – 18, Fig 3)
As per claim 10, Koch discloses: wherein the UI further indicates a respective period for which each respective owner of the one or more owners owned the NFT. ( Koch discloses the blockchain indicating when an owner owned a particular virtual item) (Koch 26:56 – 27:16)
As per claim 11, Koch discloses: wherein the at least one UI indicates a respective game and/or game scene associated with acquisition of the NFT by the respective owner of the one or more owners. (Koch discloses the viewing of interesting past events associated with the virtual item such as participation in a game event where a boss was defeated) (Koch 25:29 – 65)
As per claim 12, Koch discloses: wherein the at least one UI indicates a respective event in a game associated with acquisition of the NFT. (Koch discloses the viewing of interesting past events associated with the virtual item such as participation in a game event where a boss was defeated) (Koch 25:29 – 65)
Independent claim(s) 13 and 18 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch and Castinado based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch and Castinado based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch and Castinado based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 4, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch and Castinado based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 21 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch and Castinado based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al (US 11,154,783) in view of Castinado et al (US 2023/0009908) in view of Lom et al, “Anatomy of an NFT” 4/2021.
As per claim 6, Koch fails to disclose
detecting that and in-game task has been completed by the first owner or the second owner; and in response to detecting that the in-game task has been completed, minting the NFT on the blockchain.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Lom discloses the minting or creation of NFT’s in response to a player completing a game task such as reaching a certain level (Lom page 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Koch in view of Lom to use the known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by means of specifying that an NFT is minted on a blockchain in response to a game accomplishment being completed. This would be beneficial as it would provide an immutable record of the player performing a game accomplishment for others to reference.
Dependent claim(s) 17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Koch, Castinado and Lom based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al (US 11,154,783) in view of Castinado et al (US 2023/0009908) in view of “A jpeg for $70m: welcome to the strange world of cryptocurrency art” by Sophie Haigney
As per claim 7, Koch discloses at least a virtual item that is associated with an image, (Koch 26:23 – 65) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the NFT is stored as a .jpg file.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Haigney discloses that use of NFT that are associated with image files such as JPEG files (Haigney, entire disclosure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Koch in view of Haigney to utilize a known technique for improving similar devices in the same way by specifying that the image file is a jpeg file. This would enable the system to determine the best file compression format that enable the system to maintain image quality with respect to file size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues:
By now reciting ownership and event features pertaining to the metadata and the NFT, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite additional limitations claims that facilitate cross-platform use of the NFT and the benefits it affords as described in the Specification. As a result, the amended claims as a whole clearly improve upon the traditional video game engagement and accessibility techniques.” (Remarks page 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees notes that the Applicant makes multiple references to the specification utilizing techniques that “facilitate cross-platform use of the nft and the benefits it affords” but fails to specifically detail how exactly how cross-platform usage or interoperability is actually improved, other than the mere allegation that it is facilitated. The Examiner notes that the claims is directed to an abstract idea such as the colleting, analyzing and presentation of information, wherein the information includes the evaluation of events associating with NFT ownership. The additional elements (processor, memory ML model and display) amount to no more that generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and convention functions. The Examiner notes the claims fails to improve blockchain technology, NFT’s themselves, machine learning technology, or cross gaming platform interoperability and/or how displays work themselves. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant argues with respect to the rejection that “Koch fails to disclose or suggest that the events that occurred while owners of the digital asset played a video game using a plurality of different video game platforms. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Koch fails to disclose or suggest features recited by the claims.” (Remarks page 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Koch clearly and specifically discloses the use of different video game platforms that are usable by game players. “Instances of games may be executed within one or more online gaming platforms 105. As used herein, online gaming platform(s) 105 may refer to either an individual game (e.g., an interactive online game), a type of gaming console and its ecosystem, and/or both. Online gaming platform 105 may be configured to host (and/or execute instances of) the one or more (online) games. Online gaming platform 105 may be operated, hosted, and/or owned by one or more stakeholders of online gaming platform 105. For example, a platform operator (and/or another stakeholder) may sell in-game digital items (e.g., characters, weapons, vehicles, mounts, totems, resources, etc.) to players 123 of online gaming platform 105.” (Koch 5:64 – 9). Thus the game events may occur within multiple different games executed on different platforms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
2/6/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715