DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response remarks filed by Applicant on 2/25/2026.
The Examiner finds applicant’s arguments with respect to the secondary reference Nieto reference persuasive. The concept of the functioning of the wearable article while displaying the digital collectable, was not given its appropriate weight by the Examiner in the previous rejection. Therefore, this reference was removed and a new search was conducted identifying a new reference to teach the lacking concepts.
The Examiner, in considering Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims and in light of the newly applied prior art to the independent claims, has remapped some of the previous rejections, but also identified two claims as containing allowable subject matter.
Therefore, the Examiner is re-issuing a new non-Final Office Action, making applicant’s arguments moot, and according Applicant the appropriate statutory period for reply.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by applicant on 10/22/2025, 2/25/2026, and 3/16/2026 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1–4, 6, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 (US 2023/0004125 A1, published Jan. 5, 2023) in view of Davis (US 11,348,152 B1, issued May 31, 2022) in view of Knock ‘386 (US 11,651,386 B1, issued May 16, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Knock ‘125 discloses: a method comprising: receiving a digital collectable at a computing device (minting the watch face by transforming the watch face design into a format that is readable by a device with a watch screen. Knock ‘125 ¶ 29.); transmitting the digital collectable to a wearable article for display on an integrated display (transfer a non-fungible token to the watch face to facilitate display. Knock ‘125 ¶ 35.).
Knock ‘125 does not disclose: receiving an identifier unique to the wearable article; recording an association between the digital collectable and the wearable article identifier; receiving information related to usage of the wearable article while displaying the digital collectable; generating metadata for the digital collectable based on the received information; and recording the generated metadata in association with the digital collectable.
However, Davis does disclose: receiving an identifier unique to the wearable article (scanning the embedded tag of the good, where embedded tags include identifying information about the good. Davis 9:16 and 9:58–59.); recording an association between the digital collectable and the wearable article identifier (associating the particular NFT to the good. Davis 9:11–26.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with receiving a unique identifier of the wearable device and associating the digital collectable with the device based upon the teachings of Davis. The motivation being to link the particular NFT with the unique identity of the display device to verify the distribution. Davis 9:11–26.
Knock ‘125 in view of Davis does not disclose: receiving information related to usage of the wearable article while displaying the digital collectable; generating metadata for the digital collectable based on the received information; and recording the generated metadata in association with the digital collectable.
However, Knock ‘386 does disclose: receiving information related to usage of the wearable article while displaying the digital collectable (receiving display information associated with display of the digital content item on the wearable device and other information including, duration of time the digital content item is displayed on the wearable device, geographical location of the wearable device during display of the digital content item, and observer interaction with the digital content item, or other information. Knock ‘386 Figure 2, element 206 and 14:9–22.); generating metadata for the digital collectable based on the received information (in accordance with display information the reward component is configured to distribute rewards including supplemental digital content awarded to the user by transferring a fungible or non-fungible token to an address on the decentralize ledger 117 that corresponds to a user wallet associated with the user. Knock ‘386 8:64–9:17 and 9:41–67.); and recording the generated metadata in association with the digital collectable (a fungible or non-fungible token to an address on the decentralize ledger 117 that corresponds to a user wallet associated with the user and the supplemental digital content is a second digital content item is added to the first digital content item. Knock ‘386 9:41–67.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with receiving usage data while displaying a digital collectable and generating metadata for the digital collectable based upon usage data and recording the generated metadata based upon the teachings of Knock ‘386. The motivation being to manage the display rights and incentivize display of the digital collectable.
Regarding claim 2, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the digital collectable is a cryptographically secured digital collectable (Knock ‘125 ¶ 62.).
Regarding claim 3, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the cryptographically secured digital collectable is a non-fungible token (NFT) (Knock ‘125 ¶ 62.).
Regarding claim 4, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the wearable article is an article of footwear or apparel (Knock ‘125 Figure 5 and ¶ 41.).
Regarding claim 6, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the information related to usage of the wearable article includes at least one of: a user identity, an event in which the wearable article was used, a location where the wearable article was used, or a duration of use (tracking component determines a geographical location of the wearable device during display of the digital content item. Knock ‘386 8:16–36.).
Regarding claim 11, Knock ‘125 discloses: a system comprising: a wearable article having an integrated display (Knock ‘125 See Figure 5.); communication circuitry coupled to the integrated display (Knock ‘125 ¶ 21.); a computing device configured to: receive a cryptographically secured digital collectable (minting the watch face by transforming the watch face design into a format that is readable by a device with a watch screen. Knock ‘125 ¶ 29.); transmit the cryptographically secured digital collectable to the wearable article for display on the integrated display (transfer a non-fungible token to the watch face to facilitate display. Knock ‘125 ¶ 35.).
Knock ‘125 does not disclose: receive, from the communication circuitry, an identifier unique to the wearable article; record an association between the cryptographically secured digital collectable and the wearable article identifier; receive usage information related to the wearable article while the cryptographically secured digital collectable is displayed; generate metadata for the cryptographically secured digital collectable based on the received usage information; and record the generated metadata in association with the cryptographically secured digital collectable.
However, Davis does disclose: receive, from the communication circuitry, an identifier unique to the wearable article (scanning the embedded tag of the good, where embedded tags include identifying information about the good. Davis 9:16 and 9:58–59.); record an association between the cryptographically secured digital collectable and the wearable article identifier (associating the particular NFT to the good. Davis 9:11–26.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with receiving a unique identifier of the wearable device and associating the digital collectable with the device based upon the teachings of Davis. The motivation being to link the particular NFT with the unique identity of the display device to verify the distribution. Davis 9:11–26.
Knock ‘125 in view of Davis does not disclose: receive usage information related to the wearable article while the cryptographically secured digital collectable is displayed; generate metadata for the cryptographically secured digital collectable based on the received usage information; and record the generated metadata in association with the cryptographically secured digital collectable.
However, Knock ‘386 does disclose: receive usage information related to the wearable article while the cryptographically secured digital collectable is displayed (receiving display information associated with display of the digital content item on the wearable device and other information including, duration of time the digital content item is displayed on the wearable device, geographical location of the wearable device during display of the digital content item, and observer interaction with the digital content item, or other information. Knock ‘386 Figure 2, element 206 and 14:9–22.); generate metadata for the cryptographically secured digital collectable based on the received usage information (in accordance with display information the reward component is configured to distribute rewards including supplemental digital content awarded to the user by transferring a fungible or non-fungible token to an address on the decentralize ledger 117 that corresponds to a user wallet associated with the user. Knock ‘386 8:64–9:17 and 9:41–67.); and record the generated metadata in association with the cryptographically secured digital collectable (a fungible or non-fungible token to an address on the decentralize ledger 117 that corresponds to a user wallet associated with the user and the supplemental digital content is a second digital content item is added to the first digital content item. Knock ‘386 9:41–67.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock with receiving usage data while displaying a digital collectable and generating metadata for the digital collectable based upon usage data and recording the generated metadata based upon the teachings of Knock ‘386. The motivation being to manage the display rights and incentivize display of the digital collectable.
Regarding claim 14, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11, wherein the computing device is further configured to filter a plurality of cryptographically secured digital collectables based on display capabilities of the integrated display (taking watch faces of various designs and transforming the watch face design into a format that is readable by a device with a swatch screen. Knock ‘125 ¶ 29.).
Regarding claim 17, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11, wherein the cryptographically secured digital collectable is selected from a digital wallet containing a plurality of cryptographically secured digital collectables (the address associated with the user wallet may hold one or more tokens (i.e. the user owns one or more watch faces). Knock ‘125 ¶ 34.).
Regarding claim 18, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11, wherein the usage information includes at least one of: a game played, a tournament participated in, a race run, or steps taken while the cryptographically secured digital collectable was displayed (geographic location information from the wearable device during display of the digital content item based upon a location for an event. Knock ‘386 8:37–63.).
Regarding claim 20, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11, wherein the computing device is further configured to record the generated metadata by appending the metadata to a sidechain referenced by the cryptographically secured digital collectable (recording transactions and rights of ownership and distribution in the NFT blockchain associated with rights to use, sell, destroy and certain types of distribution. Knock ‘125 ¶ 32.).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Yilmaz (US 2012/0044190 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012).
Regarding claim 5, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein the integrated display is an electronic ink display.
However, Yilmaz does disclose: wherein the integrated display is an electronic ink display (electronic ink display. Yilmaz ¶ 18.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secured digital collectables on a wearable watch face as disclosed in Knock ‘125 with the digital display comprises an electronic ink display based upon the teachings of Yilmaz. The motivation being to display content designed to mimic the appearance of ordinary ink on paper and allowing the image to be changed later. Yilmaz ¶ 3.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Nieto (US 11,487,850 B1, issued Nov. 1, 2022).
Regarding claim 7, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein recording the generated metadata comprises requesting recordation of the metadata in a blockchain or sidechain associated with the digital collectable.
However, Nieto does disclose: wherein recording the generated metadata comprises requesting recordation of the metadata in a blockchain or sidechain associated with the digital collectable (updating the blockchain with tracked usage data. Nieto 31:7–24.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with receiving usage information of the wearable device while displaying the digital collectable and generated metadata for the digital collectable based upon the received information based upon the teachings of Nieto. The motivation being to use the digital token to collect data from the connected associated device. Nieto 17:29–40.
Claims 9, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Carter (US 2020/0059754 A1, issued Feb. 20, 2020).
Regarding claim 9, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein transmitting the digital collectable to the wearable article comprises wirelessly transmitting the digital collectable using a Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol.
However, Carter does disclose: wherein transmitting the digital collectable to the wearable article comprises wirelessly transmitting the digital collectable using a Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol (firmware enabling sharing and management of digital collectables by means of NFC-embedded devices. Carter ¶¶ 47–48.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with transmitting digital collectables to a wearable article wirelessly using Near Field Communication based upon the teachings of Carter. The motivation being to standard communication protocol to communicate between proximate devices.
Regarding claim 15, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein the communication circuitry comprises a Near Field Communication (NFC) antenna.
However, Carter does disclose: wherein the communication circuitry comprises a Near Field Communication (NFC) antenna (firmware enabling sharing and management of digital collectables by means of NFC-embedded devices. Carter ¶¶ 47–48.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with transmitting digital collectables to a wearable article wirelessly using Near Field Communication based upon the teachings of Carter. The motivation being to standard communication protocol to communicate between proximate devices.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Beers (US 2009/0272013 A1, published Nov. 5, 2009).
Regarding claim 10, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 9. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: further comprising providing an inductive charge to the wearable article via an NFC antenna.
However, Beers does disclose: further comprising providing an inductive charge to the wearable article via an NFC antenna (inductive battery charging system for footwear electronics. Beers ¶ 84.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secured digital collectables on a wearable watch face as disclosed in Knock ‘125 with providing an inductive charge to the footwear via the antenna based upon the teachings of Beers. The motivation being to safely and effectively facilitate charging of the electronics because the typical use of footwear involved operation in various weather environment including wet conditions. Beers ¶ 84.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Barfield (US 2010/0223816 A1, published Sep. 9, 2010).
Regarding claim 12, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein the wearable article is an article of footwear comprising an upper and a sole structure, and wherein the integrated display is provided on an outward facing surface of the upper.
However, Barfield does disclose: wherein the wearable article is an article of footwear comprising an upper and a sole structure, and wherein the integrated display is provided on an outward facing surface of the upper (display screen mounted on a surface of the upper member of footwear for displaying visual content. Barfield ¶ 7.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secure digital collectables on a wearable device as disclosed by Knock ‘125 with a display device integrated on a shoe based upon the teachings of Barfield. The motivation being to allow users to freely customize or personalize footwear in order to remain enriched with the updated fashion trends and practices. Barfield ¶ 3.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Liu (US 2019/0123304 A1, published Apr. 25, 2019).
Regarding claim 13, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11. While the wearable display screen taught by Knock ‘125 includes touchscreens and monitors, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be the recited emissive display nature, the reference does not teach the recited electronic ink display layer. However, Liu does disclose a display with a reflective electronic ink display (reflective display panel includes display panels of different types, such as reflective liquid crystal display panel, reflective electronic ink display panel and reflective micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) display panel. Liu ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secured digital collectables on a wearable watch face as disclosed in Knock ‘125 with different display panels of reflective liquid crystal display panels and reflective electronic ink display panels based upon the teachings of Liu. The motivation being mere design choice.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 in view of Medina (US 11,182,467 B1, issued Nov. 23, 2021).
Regarding claim 16, Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 discloses the limitations of claim 11. Knock ‘125 in view of Davis in view of Knock ‘386 does not disclose: wherein the computing device is further configured to verify the wearable article as authentic by comparing the received identifier to a listing of known authentic article identifiers.
However, Medina does disclose: wherein the computing device is further configured to verify the wearable article as authentic by comparing the received identifier to a listing of known authentic article identifiers (the user can select one or more of the assets for display on one or more registered displays. Medina 4:8–17. In determining whether the display is registered, the list of previously registered displays are referenced. Medina 4:1–7.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of cryptographically secured digital collectables on a wearable watch face as disclosed in Knock ‘125 with verifying authenticity by referring to a access control list based upon the teachings of Medina. The motivation being to assist in selection of user-owned NFT displays. Medina 4:8–17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner notes that with regard to claim 8, the below listed Spivack reference teaches verifying that a given physical object is the authentic physical object associated with the non-fungible token. However, verifying the authenticity of a physical object prior to transmitting a digital collectable was the concept (in conjunction with all the other claim limitations of the independent claim) that is the basis for this claim objection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Spivack (US 2022/0366061 A1, published Nov. 17, 2022), verifying that a given physical object is the authentic physical object associated with the non-fungible token and updating metadata used to authenticate a device through recording of telemetry in the distributed ledger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights