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 .
Status of Claims
This is the final action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on May 13, 2026.
Claims 6, 8, 12, and 15 have been amended; claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 are pending; claims 6-16 have been examined.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims have overcome the claim objections, and the claim objections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112:
The amended claims have overcome the 112 rejections, and the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that independent claims 6 and 12 recite additional elements that integrate an allegedly-claimed abstract idea into a practical application such that they are not as a whole, “directed to” the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two and provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited paragraphs of [0003] and [0004] of the publication merely disclose that NFT needs to be authenticated and that the on-chain verification may be slow. The paragraph [0009] of the publication merely states that: “there is not an effective way for people to authenticate their NFTs off-chain.” The examiner would like to point out that claim 6 merely recites generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain ID stored off-line. Storing information associated with an NFT off-chain and utilizing the stored information to validate the authenticity of the NFT are part of the identified abstract idea. They do not constitute an improvement in functioning of computers nor technology, nor a technical field. The improvement claimed by the applicant is merely improvement in the abstract idea itself. Additionally, authenticating the NFT based on the NFT information stored off-line is merely one way of performing NFT authentication. Claim 6 as a whole is directed to authentication of non-fungible tokens. In particular, the claim recites generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. In other words, the claim falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID can be performed in the human mind. The identified additional elements of an off-chain token processing server comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and a token vault in claim 6 perform the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. These additional elements are recited as computer components to perform the abstract idea. The use of the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computer components performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claims elements separately, an off-chain token processing server comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor is used to perform the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea and fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include the subject matter of Wentker in Han’s system. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Han discloses utilizing information on an NFT card to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT card comprises a unique identifier associated with the NFT. Wentker discloses utilizing information on an NFT tag to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT tag comprises a hash generated based on NFT data and other information. One of ordinary skills in the art knows that the hash of a content can be a unique identifier for the content and can be used to authenticate the content. A hash, as a unique identifier, is hard to be duplicated by a hacker without having the content that is used to generate the hash. Additionally, the hash of the content can be used for authenticating whether the content is altered. Therefore, utilizing a hash based on the NFT data as a unique identifier can improve the authenticity and security of the authentication process of the Han system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity and security of the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a unique ID based on the identification information of the NFT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 6-11 are directed to an off-chain token processing server comprising a process and a memory, and claims 12-16 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 6-16 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 6 as a whole is directed to authentication of non-fungible tokens. In particular, the claim recites generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. In other words, the claim falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID can be performed in the human mind. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 6 recites “[an] off-chain token processing server for off-chain authentication of non- fungible tokens generated on a blockchain, the off-chain token processing server comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing machine executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: generate an off-chain token ID based on an identification characteristic of a non-fungible token (NFT); store the off-chain token ID in a token vault coupled to the processor, wherein the token vault comprises a mapping for the off-chain token ID to the NFT; and authenticate the NFT based on the off-chain token ID.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — an off-chain token processing server comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and a token vault in claim 6 — perform the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. These additional elements are recited as computer components to perform the abstract idea. The use of the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computer components performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element of “store the off-chain token ID in a token vault coupled to the processor” simply recites storing data in a storage. This additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2016.05(g)). The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 6 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 6 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using an off-chain token processing server comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and a token vault to perform an NFT authentication process amounts to no more than using computer components to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element of “store the off-chain token ID in a token vault coupled to the processor” simply recites storing data in a storage. This additional element is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in particular fields (MPEP 2016.05(d)). As discussed above, taking the claims elements separately, an off-chain token processing server comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, and a token vault are used to perform the steps of generating an off-chain token ID and authenticating the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites authentication of non-fungible tokens. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 7-11 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 7 recites additional elements of receiving an off-chain authentication request from a point of access computer, wherein the off-chain authentication request is based on an access request of the NFT and transmitting an authentication decision to the point of access computer based on the off- chain token ID. These two additional elements simply recite gathering data. They add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2026.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in particular fields (MPEP 2026.05(d)). These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites an additional element of wherein the off-chain authentication request comprises the off-chain token ID associated with the NFT. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the off-chain authentication request. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites an additional element of wherein the identification characteristic of the NFT is a key associated with a public address of the NFT. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the identification characteristic of the NFT. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites performing an on-chain validation of the NFT independent, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of an off-chain token processing server, a processor, and a point of access computer are recited as tools to perform the abstract idea, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites wherein the authentication decision is further based on the on-chain validation of the NFT, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an off-chain token processing server is recited as a tool to perform the abstract idea and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 as a whole is directed to authentication of a non-fungible token. In particular, the claim recites receiving a request to generate an off-chain token ID for an NFT, issuing the off-chain token ID, receiving an authentication request, authenticating ownership of the NFT, and providing an authentication. In other words, the claim falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves authentication of non-fungible tokens, which is a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk. Additionally, the step of authenticating ownership of the NFT can be performed in the human mind. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 12 recites “[a] method for processing non-fungible token (NFT), the method comprising: receiving, by a token processing server, a request to generate an off-chain token ID for an NFT, from an NFT marketplace computer based on a purchase of the NFT; issuing, by the token processing server, the off-chain token ID based on metadata of the NFT; receiving, by the token processing server, an authentication request generated by a point of access computer; authenticating, by the token processing server, ownership of the NFT based on information from a token vault associated with the token processing server; and providing, by the token processing server, an authentication decision to the point of access computer based on the off-chain token ID.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — a token processing server, an NFT marketplace computer, a point of access computer, and a token vault in claim 12 — perform the steps of receiving a request to generate an off-chain token ID for an NFT, issuing the off-chain token ID, receiving an authentication request, authenticating ownership of the NFT, and providing an authentication. These additional elements are recited as computer components to perform the abstract idea. The use of the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computer components performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 12 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 12 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a token processing server, an NFT marketplace computer, a point of access computer, and a token vault to perform authentication of a non-fungible token amounts to no more than using computer components to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claims elements separately, a token processing server, an NFT marketplace computer, a point of access computer, and a token vault are used to perform the steps of receiving a request to generate an off-chain token ID for an NFT, issuing the off-chain token ID, receiving an authentication request, authenticating ownership of the NFT, and providing an authentication. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites authentication of a non-fungible token. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 13-16 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 13 recites an additional element of storing, by the token processing server, the off-chain token ID in the token vault based on issuing the off-chain token ID. This additional element simply recites storing data in a storage. It adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2026.05(g)) and is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in particular fields (MPEP 2026.05(d)). The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites additional elements of wherein the authentication request comprises token information associated with the NFT and wherein the token information is retrieved from a digital wallet. The additional elements fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter as they simply describe the characteristics of the authentication request and the token information. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites wherein the off-chain token ID is issued based on an item included in the metadata of the NFT, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. No new additional elements are identified.
Claim 16 recites performing an on-chain validation of the NFT, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a token processing server and a point of access computer are recited as tools to perform the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO 2023214596 A1) in view of Wentker et al. (US 20230246836 A1).
Claim 6:
Han discloses the following:
an off-chain token processing server (i.e., an NFT management server) for off-chain authentication of non- fungible tokens generated on a blockchain […]. (See paragraphs 1-2 under the Section of NFT Card Production Method and System, page 5, “[t]he present invention relates to a method and system for producing an NFT card…. NFTs created separately from content are recognized as ownership of the digital content and are distributed online (usually in a blockchain environment)”; paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card”; and paragraph 1, page 8, “[u]sing the information extracted from the NFT card 300, furthermore, the NFT content linked to the NFT card 300 can be authenticated, and depending on the authentication result, the authenticity of the NFT content can be displayed on the display and the NFT content can be played.”)
generate an off-chain token ID (i.e., a unique ID of an NFT card) […] (associated with) a non-fungible token (NFT); store the off-chain token ID in a token vault (i.e., a content DB) coupled to the (off-chain token processing server), wherein the token vault comprises a mapping for the off-chain token ID to the NFT. (See paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card”; paragraphs 6-7, page 8, “the NFT management server 100 is configured to include an NFT content registration server 110, an NFT content authentication server 150, and a content DB 190…. The NFT content registration server 110 configures NFT content, metadata of the NFT content, owner information, etc., stores the composed NFT content information in the content DB 190, and issues an NFT token corresponding to the NFT content information. In addition, the NFT content registration server 110 generates a unique ID accessible to the registered NFT content, stores it in the NFT content information, and issues an NFT card 300 including a unique ID and a representative image of the content. Additionally, the NFT content registration server 110 may further store the issued NFT card 300 as one NFT content in the content DB 190.”)
authenticate of the NFT based on the off-chain token ID. (See paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card”; paragraph 1, page 8, “[u]sing the information extracted from the NFT card 300, furthermore, the NFT content linked to the NFT card 300 can be authenticated, and depending on the authentication result, the authenticity of the NFT content can be displayed on the display and the NFT content can be played”; paragraphs 5-8, page 10, “[t]he portable terminal 210, which recognizes the NFT card 300 through the provided camera sensor, configures and transmits an authentication request including at least the extracted unique ID and user ID, and the NFT management server 100 receives the authentication request…. Upon receiving the authentication request, the NFT management server 100 determines the owner of the NFT content linked to the unique ID of the authentication request through the content DB 190 (S53). The NFT management server 100 searches for an NFT content item having a unique ID of the NFT card 300 captured in the NFT content items of the content DB 190, extracts owner information of the searched NFT content item, and extracts the current NFT content item”; and the last paragraph, page 10, “[t]he NFT management server 100 transmits authentication data indicating the result of authentication according to authentication to the portable terminal 210 that requested authentication (S55).”)
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing machine executable instructions executable by the processor. (See paragraph 14, page 7 – paragraph 1, page 8, “[t]he electronic device 200 includes a camera sensor, a processor, and a display, and authenticates the authenticity of the NFT content corresponding to the physical NFT card 300 recognized through the camera sensor through the NFT management server 100 and stores the NFT content…. The portable terminal 210, personal computer 250, or kiosk 290 captures the NFT card 300 using a camera sensor through an app or web (program) provided in the internal memory and captures the captured photo.” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that an internal memory is coupled to a processor for a computing device.)
Han discloses an off-line token processing server (i.e., an NFT management server) performing the claimed functionalities. Han does not explicitly disclose that the off-chain processing server is a computing device. The examiner introduces another reference, Wentker, an analogous art of verifying the authentication of an NFT via an NFC card, which discloses that an off-chain processing server is a computing device/system performing the authentication of an NFT via an NFT tag. (See paragraph [0007], “[t]his invention is a system for managing physical art, digital art, and Non-Fungible-Tokens (NFTs) together via secure microchips attached to physical art and a computing system referred to as an Art Management System”; paragraph [0019], “[t]he electronic computing device and/or system manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the circuits, electronic registers, memories, logic, and/or components and the like of the electronic computing device/system into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the electronic computing device/system or other electronic computing devices/systems”; Fig. 2; paragraph [0030], “an Art Management System 230 which is a cloud-based computing system with security and a database system to manage data about the Physical Art Piece 201, storage of the Digital Art Piece 220, data about the Digital Art Piece 220, data and security data for the NFC Tag 210; a Blockchain System 240 which is responsible for generating a Non-Fungible-Token (NFT) for the Digital Art Piece 220”; and Fig. 5.)
Additionally, Han does not explicitly disclose that the off-chain token ID is generated based on an identification characteristic of the NFT.
Wentker further discloses that an off-chain token identification (i.e., an AES Cryptogram) is generated based on an identification characteristic of the NFT. (See Fig. 6; paragraph [0057], “610 is an example of a chip ID which is unique per NFC Tag 210. 620 is the unique NFT data that is stored in the chip as described in step 460. 630 is the cryptographic hash which is generated using the chip ID 610 with the NFT data 620 plus security data such as cryptographic keys, counters, and the like.”)
Han discloses utilizing information on an NFT card to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT card comprises a unique identifier associated with the NFT. Wentker discloses utilizing information on an NFT tag to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT tag comprises a hash generated based on NFT data and other information. One of ordinary skills in the art knows that the hash of a content can be a unique identifier for the content and can be used to authenticate the content. A hash, as a unique identifier, is hard to be duplicated by a hacker without having the content that is used to generate the hash. Additionally, the hash of the content can be used for authenticating whether the content is altered. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity and security of the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a computing device/system to perform the authentication and to generate a unique ID based on the identification information of the NFT, so that the NFT can be effectively authenticated based on the unique ID via the computing system.
Claim 7:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Han further discloses receive an off-chain authentication request from a point of access computer, wherein the off-chain authentication request is based on an access request of the NFT; transmit an authentication decision to the point of access computer based on the off- chain token ID. (See paragraph 14, page 7, “[t]he electronic device 200 is a device used or installed in various environments and situations, and may be, for example, a portable terminal 210, a personal computer 250, or a kiosk 290. The portable terminal 210 may be, for example, a smartphone or a tablet PC, and the kiosk 290 may be a dedicated device designed according to the present invention and placed in a specific location (e.g., a specific shopping mall or public location, etc.)”; paragraph 1, page 8, “[t]he portable terminal 210, personal computer 250, or kiosk 290 captures the NFT card 300 using a camera sensor through an app or web (program) provided in the internal memory and captures the captured photo. Using the information extracted from the NFT card 300, furthermore, the NFT content linked to the NFT card 300 can be authenticated, and depending on the authentication result, the authenticity of the NFT content can be displayed on the display and the NFT content can be played”; paragraph 6, page 8, “the NFT management server 100 is configured to include an NFT content registration server 110, an NFT content authentication server 150, and a content DB 190”; and paragraph 9, page 8, “[t]he NFT content authentication server 150 authenticates the NFT content through the information identified in the authentication request according to the authentication request received from the electronic device 200 (e.g., portable terminal 210, etc.) and displays the authentication result.”)
Claim 8:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Han discloses wherein the off-chain authentication request comprises the off-chain token ID associated with the NFT. (See paragraph 3, page 6, “[i]n addition, the NFT content authentication system according to an aspect of the present invention receives an authentication request including a user ID and a unique ID of the NFT card from a portable terminal that recognizes the NFT card through a camera sensor, and is linked to the unique ID”; paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card.”)
Claim 9:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Wentker further discloses wherein the identification characteristic of the NFT is a key associated with a public address of the NFT. (See Fig. 6; paragraph [0057], “610 is an example of a chip ID which is unique per NFC Tag 210. 620 is the unique NFT data that is stored in the chip as described in step 460. 630 is the cryptographic hash which is generated using the chip ID 610 with the NFT data 620 plus security data such as cryptographic keys, counters, and the like.” Examiner’s Note: Claim 9 recites the characteristics of the identification characteristic of the NFT, while the particular characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any positively recited steps or functions. Therefore, this claim recites nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a unique ID based on the identification information of the NFT, so that the NFT can be effectively authenticated based on the unique ID via the computing system.
Claim 10:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Wentker further discloses performing an on-chain validation of the NFT independent of the point of access computer. (See Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; and paragraph [0051], “[t]he fifth step 540 involves the Art Management System verifying the NFT data with the Blockchain System 240 to identify the Digital Art Piece 220 file location which is stored within the Art Management System 230 as previously described.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform an on-chain validation of the NFT, so that the NFT can be thoroughly validated based on the information recorded in the blockchain.
Claim 11:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Wentker further discloses wherein the authentication decision is further based on the on-chain validation of the NFT. (See Fig. 5; paragraphs [0051]-[0052].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine an authentication decision based on the on-chain validation of the NFT, so that the NFT can be thoroughly validated based on the information recorded in the blockchain.
Claim 12:
Han discloses the following:
receiving, by a token processing server, a request to generate an off-chain token ID for an NFT, from an NFT marketplace computer based on a purchase of the NFT. (See the last paragraph, page 7; paragraphs 2-8, page 9, “[a]lternatively, the registered NFT content may be a photo or video that includes the product or the place where the product was purchased to indicate the purchase of the product when purchasing the product offline at the portable terminal 210 or the kiosk 290, which is a dedicated device…. Thereafter, the NFT management server 100 receives registration data of NFT content from an app, web, or kiosk 290 through the Internet…. In addition to the existing known NFT registration procedure, the NFT management server 100 issues an NFT card 300 containing a unique ID that can access the registered NFT content (S15)…. The NFT management server 100 generates a new unique ID mapped to the NFT content, stores the generated unique ID in the newly created NFT content item, and automatically resizes or images the NFT content according to the information in the metadata”; and paragraphs 2-4, page 11, “[t]he portable terminal 210 can receive and play photos or videos taken when purchasing an offline product as NFT content, and when purchasing a product, a warranty certificate that can authenticate the purchase or genuineness of the product, data indicating the seller or the purchaser are provided as additional information.”)
issuing, by the token processing server, the off-chain token ID […] associated with metadata of the NFT. (See paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card”; paragraphs 5-8, page 9, “[i]n addition to the existing known NFT registration procedure, the NFT management server 100 issues an NFT card 300 containing a unique ID that can access the registered NFT content (S15). The NFT management server 100 is equipped with a physical card of a standardized shape having a unique ID uniquely mapped to the registered NFT content.”)
receiving, by the token processing server, an authentication request generated by a point of access computer. (See paragraphs 5-8, page 10, “[t]he portable terminal 210, which recognizes the NFT card 300 through the provided camera sensor, configures and transmits an authentication request including at least the extracted unique ID and user ID, and the NFT management server 100 receives the authentication request.”)
authenticating, by the token processing server, ownership of the NFT based on information from a token vault associated with the token processing server. (See paragraphs 5-8, page 10, “[u]pon receiving the authentication request, the NFT management server 100 determines the owner of the NFT content linked to the unique ID of the authentication request through the content DB 190 (S53). The NFT management server 100 searches for an NFT content item having a unique ID of the NFT card 300 captured in the NFT content items of the content DB 190, extracts owner information of the searched NFT content item, and extracts the current NFT content item. The owner can be determined.”)
providing, by the token processing server, an authentication decision to the point of access computer based on the off-chain token ID. (See paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card”; paragraph 1, page 8, “[a]lternatively (also), the portable terminal 210, personal computer 250, or kiosk 290 may be used to authenticate NFT content through the NFT card 300 [u]sing the information extracted from the NFT card 300, furthermore, the NFT content linked to the NFT card 300 can be authenticated, and depending on the authentication result, the authenticity of the NFT content can be displayed on the display and the NFT content can be played”; paragraph 6, page 8; and paragraph 9, page 8, “[t]he NFT content authentication server 150 authenticates the NFT content through the information identified in the authentication request according to the authentication request received from the electronic device 200 (e.g., portable terminal 210, etc.) and displays the authentication result.”)
Han does not explicitly disclose that the off-chain token id is generated based on metadata of the NFT.
However, Wentker, an analogous art of verifying the authentication of an NFT via an NFC card, discloses that an off-chain token identification (i.e., an AES Cryptogram) generated based on metadata of the NFT. (See Fig. 6; paragraph [0057], “610 is an example of a chip ID which is unique per NFC Tag 210. 620 is the unique NFT data that is stored in the chip as described in step 460. 630 is the cryptographic hash which is generated using the chip ID 610 with the NFT data 620 plus security data such as cryptographic keys, counters, and the like.”)
Han discloses utilizing information on an NFT card to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT card comprises a unique identifier associated with the NFT. Wentker discloses utilizing information on an NFT tag to authenticate an NFT. The information on the NFT tag comprises a hash generated based on NFT data and other information. One of ordinary skills in the art knows that the hash of a content can be a unique identifier for the content and can be used to authenticate the content. A hash, as a unique identifier, is hard to be duplicated by a hacker without having the content that is used to generate the hash. Additionally, the hash of the content can be used for authenticating whether the content is altered. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity and security of the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a unique ID based on the metadata of the NFT, so that the NFT can be effectively authenticated based on the unique ID.
Claim 13:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Han further discloses storing, by the token processing server, the off-chain token ID in the token vault based on issuing the off-chain token ID. (See paragraphs 6-7, page 8, “the NFT management server 100 is configured to include an NFT content registration server 110, an NFT content authentication server 150, and a content DB 190…. The NFT content registration server 110 configures NFT content, metadata of the NFT content, owner information, etc., stores the composed NFT content information in the content DB 190, and issues an NFT token corresponding to the NFT content information. In addition, the NFT content registration server 110 generates a unique ID accessible to the registered NFT content, stores it in the NFT content information, and issues an NFT card 300 including a unique ID and a representative image of the content. Additionally, the NFT content registration server 110 may further store the issued NFT card 300 as one NFT content in the content DB 190.”)
Claim 14:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Han further discloses wherein the authentication request comprises token information associated with the NFT, wherein the token information is retrieved from a digital wallet. (See paragraph 7, page 8, “[t]he NFT content registration server 110 configures NFT content, metadata of the NFT content, owner information, etc., stores the composed NFT content information in the content DB 190, and issues an NFT token corresponding to the NFT content information”; paragraph 4, page 9, “[t]he initially configured owner information includes data representing the owner of the NFT content to be registered and may further include, for example, a user ID and further a password. The user ID may be an ID or/and an electronic wallet ID used to access the NFT management server 100 on the electronic device 200 (web, app, or kiosk 290)”; and paragraphs 5-7, page 10, “[t]he portable terminal 210 is capable of taking pictures and extracting IDs using an electronic wallet app or the web…. The authentication request may further include a password, etc. in addition to the user ID. The user ID may be the user ID in the e-wallet app or on the web.”)
Claim 15:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Han discloses wherein the off-chain token ID is issued associated with the NFT. (See paragraph 7, page 6, “[t]he NFT management server stores the NFT content in a content DB using the registration data and issues an NFT token mapped to the NFT content; And a step of the NFT management server issuing an NFT card including a unique ID that can access the NFT content, wherein the unique ID is linked to the ID of the NFT token, and the NFT card is a portable card.”)
Wentker further discloses wherein the token identification is issued based on an item included in the metadata of the NFT. (See Fig. 6; paragraph [0057], “610 is an example of a chip ID which is unique per NFC Tag 210. 620 is the unique NFT data that is stored in the chip as described in step 460. 630 is the cryptographic hash which is generated using the chip ID 610 with the NFT data 620 plus security data such as cryptographic keys, counters, and the like.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity and security of the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a unique ID based on the information of the metadata of the NFT, so that the NFT can be effectively authenticated based on the unique ID via the computing system.
Claim 16:
Han in view of Wentker discloses the limitations shown above.
Wentker further discloses performing, by the token processing server, an on-chain validation of the NFT independent of the point of access computer. (See Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; and paragraph [0051], “[t]he fifth step 540 involves the Art Management System verifying the NFT data with the Blockchain System 240 to identify the Digital Art Piece 220 file location which is stored within the Art Management System 230 as previously described.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wentker in the Han system. Moreover, in order to improve the authentication process of the Han system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform an on-chain validation of the NFT, so that the NFT can be thoroughly validated based on the information recorded in the blockchain.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Hahn (US 20230274268 A1) discloses that a computing system can include an Application Programming Interface (API) callable by a requestor: returning authentication results to the requestor, the authentication results confirming a hash of a public number and a private number for a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), wherein the NFT contains a public number and a hash of the public number and the private number. The computing system retrieves block content from a portion of a blockchain or an indexed database of blockchain data containing the private number wherein the processor confirms the hash of the public number and the private number and returns the authentication results to the requestor via the API.
Kayaba et al. (US 20240320746 A1) discloses that NFTs include an on-chain NFT that records identification target data (on-chain data) in its own NFT (token), and an off-chain NFT that records, in its own NFT, an identifier of identification target data (off-chain data) on an off-chain outside its own NFT.
Jones et al. (US 12406268 B1) discloses that a system may store the identifier hash, while the digital data of the NFT 116 is stored off-chain. Ownership of the NFT may include ownership of hex values encoding transaction elements, such as function names, parameters, and return values, that are used to access NFT data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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 at 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights