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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 06/25/2026 which are entered herewith.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered, the rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, is maintained in view of MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims are still directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite receiving one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers; grouping the one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers into one or more groups according to contract type and contract address; and sending each of the one or more groups of token minting transaction requests to an appropriate token contract for minting. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps above amount to collecting, organizing, and routing transaction information. which falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices). More specifically, grouping the requests according to contract typer and contract address constitutes organizing data according to classification criteria, and sending the resulting groups to the appropriate token constitutes routing the organized request to the corresponding destinations. The claims do not recite a particular technical mechanism for how the grouping or routing is performed but instead recite the steps at a functional level. Further, the claimed process does not recite a particular improvement to blockchain operation or computer functionality, and the token contracts merely provide the technological environment in which the receiving, grouping, and routing operations are performed. The additional elements of the claims merely recite generic computer components that perform routine functions of receiving, grouping, and sending data, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the applicant’s asserted improvements in transaction speed, energy efficiency, and flexibility do not demonstrate that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not recite a particular technological mechanism that produces those asserted improvements. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. See remarks on page 6-7.
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 therefore, 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method, claims 7-13 are directed to an article of manufacture, and claims 14-20 are directed an apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groups: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independents claims 1, 7, and 14 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of “receiving one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers; grouping the one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers into one or more groups according to contract type and contract address; and sending each of the one or more groups of token minting transaction requests to an appropriate token contract for minting.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite managing token minting transactions by receiving token minting transaction requests into groups according to contract type and contract address and routing each resulting group to the appropriate token contract for minting. Thus, the claims organize and facilitate token minting transactions by classifying and routing transaction requests according to specified contract information and therefore recite the abstract idea organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 8, and 15 recite: wherein the appropriate token contracts are configured to send the minted tokens to an escrow wallet; further limits the destination of the minted tokens and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 9, 16 recite: wherein the appropriate token contracts are configured to send the minted tokens directly to an end user wallet; further limits the destination of the minted tokens and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 recite: wherein at least one of the token contract types comprises: ERC 721 or ERC 1155; further specifies the token contract type used in performing token minting process and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 recite: wherein the grouping of the one or more token minting transaction requests is performed by one or more long running workers (LRWs); further species that the grouping of the token minting transaction requests is performed by one or more long running workers and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 recite: wherein a separate LRW is assigned to each token contract type; further specifies that separate long running worker is assigned to each token contract type and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 13 and 20 recites: wherein the instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise a software development kit (SDK); further specifies that the instructions stored on the non-transitory medium comprise a software development kit and constitutes an additional element beyond the judicial exception.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recited processors, memory, token contracts, long-running workers, and other computing components are used to implement the receiving, grouping, and routing operations. Although the applicant asserts that the claimed invention improves transaction speed, energy efficiency, minting costs, and flexibility, the claims do not recite a technological mechanism for those asserted improvements. Rather, the claims recite grouping requests according to contract type and contract address and directing the resulting groups to appropriate token contracts at a functional level. Grouping requests according to specified classification criteria constitutes data organization, while directing the resulting grouping to corresponding token contracts constitutes routing the organized request to appropriate destinations. The claims do not recite how the grouping or a particular modification to the operation of the blockchain, token contract, or the computer. Accordingly, the recite computer and blockchain elements merely provide the technological environment in which the receiving, grouping, and routing operations are performed and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Viewed as a whole, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional computer elements perform the claimed receiving, organizing, and routing operations at a functional level. The claims do not recite an unconventional technological mechanism for performing the grouping or routing, nor do the claims recite a particular modification to the operation of the computer, blockchain network, or token contracts. Rather, the additional elements implement the identified data organization and routing process within the recited environment. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter.
Statement Regarding Prior Art:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the following:
grouping the one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers into one or more groups according to contract type and contract address;
and sending each of the one or more groups of token minting transaction requests to an appropriate token contract for minting.
Xia et al. US 11132676 (herein as “Xia”) discloses Implementations of this specification include identify a plurality of transactions to be executed in the blockchain, wherein the transactions are arranged in an execution order, and wherein the execution order includes a contract call arranged after the plurality of transactions; identify groups of transactions within the plurality of transactions, wherein each transaction in each group is associated with a same account in the blockchain network as the other transactions in the group; instruct nodes of the blockchain network to execute each of the groups of transactions in parallel, wherein executing each group of transactions includes executing the transactions within the group serially and according to the execution order; determine that the nodes of the blockchain network have completed executing all of the groups of transactions; and in response, instruct the nodes of the blockchain network to execute the contract call. However, Xia does not disclose or suggest grouping the one or more token minting transaction requests from one or more developers into one or more groups according to contract type and contract address. Rather, Xia discloses identifying groups of transactions and executing the groups in parallel, not based on smart contract types or addresses.
Fortuna et al. US 20240104552 (herein as “Fortuna”) discloses methods and processes for faster and more efficient creation of NFTs while further enhancing the use and transferability of digital assets along with, or in conjunction with, tangible goods and other physical real world assets; methods for securing personal keys that allow for improved security of the physical key while simultaneously providing for transferability of the underlying digital assets; and methods for creation and activation of digital wallets, digital assets, and/or digital asset backed gift cards and the like. However, Fortuna does not disclose or suggest grouping or organizing token minting transaction requests into groups according to contract types with ERC standards and specific contract addresses for processing. Rather, Fortuna discloses organizing and creating assets using smart contacts, it does not distinguish or group transactions based on different smart contract types (ERC standards) or specific contract addresses.
Brandeleer et al. US 20240177143 (herein as “Brandeleer”) discloses a first instruction to deploy to a blockchain a smart contract that includes a minting function may be transmitted from a database system. The minting function may include an authorization portion that permits token minting only when a request is received from a requestor associated with a role for which token minting is authorized. A second instruction to record on the blockchain an association between a public key for an intermediary wallet, a unique identifier for the smart contract, and an intermediary minting role may also be transmitted from the database system. A transaction in which a designated token was minted to a designated wallet based on a request received in association with the intermediary wallet may be identified at the database system. The transaction may be authorized based on an application of the public key to information included in the request. However, Brandeleer does not disclose or suggest grouping or organizing token minting transaction requests into groups according to contract types with ERC standards and specific contract addresses for processing. Rather, Brandeleer discloses receiving token minting requests associated with identified smart contracts and processing requests to mint tokens using the corresponding smart contract environment but does not distinguish or group transactions based on different smart contract types (ERC standards) or specific contract addresses.
Therefore, the prior art, whether alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Custodial Tool for Building Decentralized Computer Applications (US 20210092108 A1) teaches a mechanism for building decentralized computer applications that execute on a distributed computing system. The present technology works within a web browser, client application, or other software and provides access to decentralized computer applications through the browser. The present technology is non-custodial, wherein a public-private key pair, which represents user identity, is created on a client machine and then directly encrypted by a third-party platform without relying on one centralized computing system.
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.
In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
