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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5, 12, 14, 15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 9, 2026.
All pending claims not withdrawn, 1, 6-11, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20, are examined in this non-final office action in response to Applicant’s election.
Please change status of withdrawn claims in a formal reply to this office action. Applicant is encouraged to indicate status as “Withdrawn.” Should examined independent claims be found to be allowable, withdrawn claims will be rejoined.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al., US 11,501,297 “Tai,” in view of James et al., US 10,540,654 “James.”
In Tai see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
(Original) A computing system for requesting digital asset generation, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations, comprising:
(Tai: D123: col. 28, lines 24-34) Furthermore, the processes described above are illustrated as collections of blocks in logical flow graphs, which represent sequences of operations that can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, the blocks represent computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable storage media that, when executed by processor(s), perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-executable instructions include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types.
providing an order graphical user interface, wherein the order graphical user interface comprises a plurality of entry fields; receiving, via the order graphical user interface, a minting request, …
(Tai: D56: col. 12, lines 20-30) In one embodiment, a seller 116 can generate an NFT 170 using payment service servers 102, as illustrated in the first period 120. In at least one example, the seller 116 can identify a digital asset to use for creating the NFT 170. In at least one example, the payment service servers 102 can prompt the seller 116 to capture, upload, or otherwise provide the digital asset to the payment service servers 102. In at least one example, the seller 116 can provide a name for the NFT, a description of the NFT, a cost of the NFT (e.g., a fixed price, a timed auction, or the like), a blockchain on which to base the NFT on, or the like.
(Tai: D59: col. 13, lines 8-13) … In some examples, the payment service servers 102 can lock or otherwise hold a digital asset that is associated with the NFT 170 to prevent tampering prior to the sale. In certain embodiments, NFTs may be batch minted, for example, upon the cost of minting falling below a predetermined threshold. Please note: The predetermined threshold sets the cost limit.
(Tai: D98: col. 23, lines 1-12) Referring to FIG. 3, an example user UI 300 that allows for listing and describing an NFT 330 by a seller in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. For instance, the UI 300 may be presented via a display for a seller's computing device in communication with payment service servers that are configured to provide one or more additional inventory management services. The UI 300 may include one or multiple features, components, and/or functionalities of implementations described herein with reference to FIGS. 1-2 and 4-19. The ability to add items to a seller's catalog of merchandise for sale can be done via a form input screen such as that depicted in the UI 300.
(Tai: D99: col. 23, lines 13-27) In the depicted example, the item type has been selected via the dropdown menu 320 to indicate that the newly added item to the inventory catalog is an NFT 330. The NFT 330 itself can be displayed to indicate what content (including by way of non-limiting example, artistic expression of any medium, pictures, music, GIFs, etc.) may accompany the listing. For digital assets, such as artwork, the artwork itself may be shown. For physical items being tied to an NFT 330, a picture of the physical item may be shown. However, any placeholder graphic may be utilized as needed for various digital assets that are not easily configured for display. In some examples, the representation can be generated using one or more machine learning model(s), which can, for example, be trained on metadata associated with the content, sale listing, or the like.
… wherein the minting request comprises input data input into one or more of the plurality of entry fields, wherein the input data is descriptive of:
a digital asset;
(Tai: D56: col. 12, lines 22-28) … the seller 116 can identify a digital asset to use for creating the NFT 170. … a name for the NFT, a description of the NFT, …
(Tai: Fig. 3 (340)) “NFT Event Tickets”
a quantity;
(Tai: Fig. 3 (344)) “107”
(Tai: D100: col. 23, lines 28-35) Other information related to the NFT 330 may be added via the UI 300 including, but not limited to, an item title 340, the cost 342 for the NFT 330, accepted currencies for payment of the cost 342, fees associated with purchasing the NFT 330, the quantity 344 of the NFTs available (for NFTs that are similar but still uniquely different, such as tickets for an event that all have unique seating locations), and a general description 350 about the NFT 330.
a specific blockchain of a plurality of blockchains; and (Tai: D56: col. 12, lines 29-30) … a blockchain on which to base the NFT on …
a cost limit, wherein the cost limit is descriptive a maximum cost threshold;
(Tai: D59: col. 13, lines 8-13) … In some examples, the payment service servers 102 can lock or otherwise hold a digital asset that is associated with the NFT 170 to prevent tampering prior to the sale. In certain embodiments, NFTs may be batch minted, for example, upon the cost of minting falling below a predetermined threshold.
determining a mint cost based at least in part on the quantity and the specific blockchain;
(Tai: D33: col. 5, lines 38-51) … The payment service may surface various transaction costs for both purchasing the NFT from the seller, and the transfer costs of moving the NFT to an optimal blockchain. This transaction cost data can be automatically generated by the payment service outside of user view by searching for available blockchains and determining the current transaction costs associated with minting, or otherwise embedding, the NFT on that network. As those skilled in the art can recognize, these transaction costs can change often and as such, a non-static method of determining these costs can be in place to verify upon each transaction. This can be done in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, accessing current minting costs on one or more exchange networks.
(Tai: D43: col. 8, lines 27-30) … As an example, for a seller, the payment service can determine fees necessary to mint an NFT and any other fees related to generating the NFT and can present the fees to the seller in a single, integrated cost.
determining the mint cost is below the maximum cost threshold;
(Tai: D35: col. 6, lines16-19) … Further, in using lazing minting processes, the payment service can leverage the volatility of cryptocurrency value for determining when to mint an NFT (e.g., at a time when a gas fee is low or below a threshold).
(Tai: D59: col. 13, lines 8-13) … In some examples, the payment service servers 102 can lock or otherwise hold a digital asset that is associated with the NFT 170 to prevent tampering prior to the sale. In certain embodiments, NFTs may be batch minted, for example, upon the cost of minting falling below a predetermined threshold.
(Tai: D93: col. 6, lines 16-19) … In some examples, the NFT 170 may be minted to all available blockchains that fall within a certain threshold, such as cost or compatibility.
generating one or more tokens, wherein the token comprises a script that is descriptive of a storage location for the digital asset;
(Tai: D56: col. 12, lines 20-26) In one embodiment, a seller 116 can generate an NFT 170 using payment service servers 102, as illustrated in the first period 120. In at least one example, the seller 116 can identify a digital asset to use for creating the NFT 170. In at least one example, the payment service servers 102 can prompt the seller 116 to capture, upload, or otherwise provide the digital asset to the payment service servers 102.
(Tai: D59: col. 13, lines 4-8) In some examples, the seller 116 may list the NFT 170 for sale before the NFT 170 has been minted. That is, the seller 116 may list the digital asset for sale and the minting can occur at a later time (e.g., the NFT 170 is purchased or another event occurs).
adding the one or more tokens to the specific blockchain;
(Tai: D29: col. 4, lines 18-35) In some examples, a seller may be provided a listing of multiple blockchains on which to mint an NFT. In some examples, buyers may be provided a listing of multiple blockchains on which to mint an NFT. In some examples, a seller or buyer selection of a blockchain can be used to determine which blockchain an NFT is minted on. As described above, techniques described herein, can enable the generation, transfer, storage, and/or the like of NFTs on one or more blockchains by employing one or more networks and/or protocols to enable different blockchains to be interoperable, without regard to differences in standards and/or formats associated with different blockchains and associated networks. That is, techniques described herein can enable users (e.g., buyers and/or sellers) to select which blockchain(s) to generate, transfer, and/or maintain NFTs without regard to different standards and/or formats. As such, techniques described herein enable blockchain “agnostic” transactions.
(Tai: D33: col. 5, lines 31-33) The payment service can also provide buyers of NFTs the ability to mint or otherwise transfer a purchasable NFT to another blockchain.
in response to adding the one or more tokens to the specific blockchain, obtaining one or more contract addresses associated with the one or more tokens; and providing the one or more contract addresses.
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings applied to claim 1 by Tai and further upon the combination of Tai-James.
In Tai see at least:
(Tai: D53: col. 11, lines 15-35) Blockchains can be used to implement smart contracts or chaincode (e.g., such as system chaincode available in Hyperledger Fabric 1.0), for example, that execute when certain predetermined conditions are met. Smart contracts are computer programs designed to automate the execution of the terms of a machine-readable contract or agreement. Unlike a traditional contract which would be written in natural language, a smart contract is a machine executable program which comprises rules that can process data and/or inputs to produce one or more results and/or outputs. This automated contract processing can then cause actions to be performed dependent upon those results derived from terms within the smart contract. That is, smart contracts have numerous uses and may require more than one set of inputs to trigger a transaction. Smart contracts may be written in any suitable programming language, such as the programming language “Solidity” on the basis of If-This-Then-That (IFTTT) logic. In at least one example, identifying information of an asset represented by an NFT can be embedded within the smart contract associated with the blockchain on which the NFT is minted.
Although Taii does not expressly mention techniques providing the digital asset with a contract address, wherein the contract address is associated with the token, James on the other hand would have taught Tai such techniques.
In James see at least:
(James: D11: col. 6, lines 44-48) … providing first smart contract instructions associated with a first smart contract associated with a digital asset token associated with a first contract address associated with the blockchain associated with the underlying digital asset, wherein the first smart contract instructions are saved as part of the blockchain for the underlying digital assets …
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of James, which associate a smart contract with a digital asset token associated with a contract address associated with the blockchain associated with the underlying digital asset, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of James to the teachings of Tai would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 7: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Tai-James and further upon the combination of Tai-James regarding blockchain selection:
(Tai: D101: col. 23, lines 48-61) Referring to FIG. 4, an example UI 400 that allows for the selection of blockchain for minting an NFT by a seller in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. For instance, the UI 400 may be presented via a display for a seller's computing device in communication with payment service servers that are configured to provide one or more additional inventory management services. The UI 400 may include one or multiple features, components, and/or functionalities of implementations described herein with reference to FIGS. 1-3 and 5-19. The ability to select, prioritize, highlight, or otherwise limit the available blockchains for minting an NFT may be done through a blockchain selection form screen such as that depicted in the UI 400.
Regarding claim 8: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Tai-James regarding product entry field: See (Tai: Fig. 3 (340)) “NFT Event Tickets”
Regarding claim 9: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Tai-James regarding quantity entry field: See (Tai: Fig. 3 (344)) “107”
Regarding claims 10 and 16: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Tai-James pertaining to system level computing elements, e.g. processor(s) and memory:
Regarding claim 11: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 10 by Tai-James regarding quantity entry field: See (Tai: Fig. 3 (344)) “107”
Regarding claim 13: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 10 by Tai-James regarding the token is a non-fungible token.
Regarding claim 17: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 16 by Tai-James regarding cost limit, maximum cost threshold, quantity and generating tokens base on cost being below the cost threshold.
Regarding claim 20: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 16 by Tai-James regarding customer relationship platform.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, US 11,501,297, and James, US 10,540,654, as applied to claims 1 and 16 further in view of Newberg et al., US 2023/0360280 “Newberg.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 16 by Tai-James and further upon the combination of Tai-James-Newberg.
In Tai-James see at least:
(Tai: D172: col. 39, lines 31-42) The environment 1500 can include a plurality of computing devices 1506, as described above. Each one of the plurality of computing devices 1506 can be any type of computing device such as a tablet computing device, a smart phone or mobile communication device, a laptop, a netbook or other portable computer or semi-portable computer, a desktop computing device, a terminal computing device or other semi-stationary or stationary computing device, a dedicated device, a wearable computing device or other body-mounted computing device, an augmented reality device, a virtual reality device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, etc.
Although Tai-James user devices include an augmented reality or virtual reality device, Tai-James do not expressly mention techniques for rendering objects using augmented reality. Newberg on the other hand would have taught Tai-James such techniques.
In Newberg see at least:
[Newberg: 0006] Another example aspect includes an apparatus for decentralized procedural digital asset creation, comprising a memory and a processor communicatively coupled with the memory. The processor is configured to receive a first request to create a digital asset from an application executing an augmented reality effect on a computing device, wherein the first request includes an identifier associated with a user of the application. The processor is further configured to generate the digital asset and metadata of the digital asset, wherein the metadata includes information about characteristics of the digital asset and ownership of the digital asset by the user. Additionally, the processor further configured to store the metadata on a blockchain. Additionally, the processor further configured to receive a second request to access the digital asset from the application. Additionally, the processor further configured to transmit, to the application for rendering, the metadata stored on the blockchain in response to validating the identifier associated with the user in the second request.
[Newberg: 0021] … It should be noted that although the example of flowers is provided in the present disclosure, AR effect 114 may involve or depict any object (e.g., animals, people, cartoons, vehicles, etc.) and likewise the digital assets produced from AR effect 114 may be any object as well. Please note: A watch qualifies as any object.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Newberg, which render a digital asset using augmented reality, e.g. any object, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Newberg to the teachings of Tai-James would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, US 11,501,297, and James, US 10,540,654, as applied to claim 10 further in view of Ayyagari, US 2023/0385791.
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 10 by Tai-James and further upon the combination of Tai-James-Ayyagari. Although Tai-James do not expressly mention techniques providing a script referencing the digital asset, Ayyagari on the other hand would have taught Ayyagari such techniques.
In Ayyagari see at least:
[Ayyagari: 0024] In some implementations, the systems and methods can include obtaining digital asset data. The digital asset data can be descriptive of a digital asset and a non-fungible token for the digital asset. In some implementations, the non-fungible token can be minted on the blockchain. The digital asset can include an image, a video, audio, text data, latent encoding data, a domain, augmented-reality assets, and/or virtual-reality assets. The non-fungible token can include script data that is descriptive of a reference location for the digital asset. In some implementations, the non-fungible token can include embedded code descriptive of the digital asset. The non-fungible token can be associated with a smart contract and/or one or more electronic ledgers. The smart contract can automatically cause an action to occur in response to a triggering event. For example, currency can be exchanged in response to a transaction being recorded. The one or more electronic ledgers can record a ground truth of transaction events associated with the digital asset.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Ayyagari, wherein the non-fungible token can include script data that is descriptive of a reference location for the digital asset, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Ayyagari to the teachings of Tai-James would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0367776 (Padmanabhan et al.) “Distributed Metadata Definition and Storage in a Database System for Public Trust Ledger Smart Contracts,” discloses: [Abstract] A plurality of metadata entries may be sent from a database system to a distributed storage system via a communication interface. The metadata entries may correspond with a respective plurality of metadata identifiers. A first function in a smart contract deployed on a blockchain may be executed to mint a designated non-fungible token initially owned by a first blockchain party corresponding with a database system account. A first transaction transferring the designated non-fungible token to a second blockchain party different from the first blockchain party may be identified. A second function in the smart contract may be executed to record a second transaction updating an attribute value associated with the designated non-fungible token to include a designated one of the plurality of metadata identifiers corresponding with a designated one of the metadata entries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights