CTFR 18/894,359 CTFR 81451 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This is in response to the communication filed on 02/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 6 and 13 are independent. Claims 1-20 have been rejected. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of remarks, filed on 02/19/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Gagne-Keats et al . reference. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of remarks, filed on 02/19/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, however found not persuasive. Regarding previous 35 U.S.C. 103 type rejections, applicant primarily argues that the cited references fail to disclose independently or in combination features of “performing an NFT inquiry, an NFT transaction, and metadata modification of the NFT, wherein performing modification of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment.” (See page 8 of remarks filed on 02/19/2026) Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s above arguments. Upon further examination, combination of Gagne-Keats et al . and Fields et al . references found to teach the features set forth by applicant’s above arguments (please see the office action below for detail explanations) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0162544 A1 (hereinafter Hua et al. ) in view of US 2023/0237483 A1 (hereinafter Gagne-Keats et al .) Regarding claim 1, Choi et al . teaches a service providing method based on a non- fungible token (NFT), comprising: creating, by a system server (note para. [0041], [0048]: server), a hash value based on user information for a vehicle, vehicle unique information, and vehicle information (note para. [0048], [0050], [0070]: generating authentication sequence or user profile by hashing vehicle identifier, user/ application identifier etc.); issuing, by a blockchain main net, an NFT corresponding to the vehicle by using the user information, the vehicle information, and the hash value (note para. [0019], [0040], [0077]: issuing NFT comprising vehicle and owner information); and performing an NFT inquiry, an NFT transaction, and metadata modification of the NFT (note para. [0040], [0077] -[0078]: storage of updated NFT transactions) between the blockchain main net and a personal terminal (note para. [0019], [0036], [0039]: blockchain distributed ledger for performing transaction between a server and user device), wherein performing modification of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment . Choi et al . fails to teach expressly wherein performing modification of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment. However, Gagne-Keats et al . teaches wherein performing modification of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment (note para. [0040], [0041]: updated metadata of the NFT assets in a metaverse) Hua et al. and Gagne-Keats et al . are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing NFT/ vehicle ownership information using blockchain network. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Gagne-Keats et al . method to further include the features of wherein performing modification of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment in order to provide users with an improved mechanism for issuing NFT including updated metadata information that can be used to authenticate a user in a multiverse environment ( note Gagne-Keats et al . , para. [0042] – [0043]) Regarding claim 2, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by a personal terminal authentication for a user of the vehicle, log-in by the user on an application installed in the personal terminal (note para. [0019] – [0020], [0045]: authentication for mobile applications); registering a vehicle unique key as the vehicle unique information through the personal terminal (note para. [0045], [0050], [0070]: private key associated with the vehicle); uploading the vehicle information through the personal terminal (note para. [0020], [0043], [0067]); and transmitting, by the personal terminal, the user information, the vehicle unique key, and the vehicle information to the system server (note para. [0045], [0067] - [0068]) Regarding claim 3, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising posting, by the blockchain main net, a history of the NFT on a blockchain (note para. [0005], [0019]: NFT comprising historical ownership information) Regarding claim 4, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the NFT transaction comprises: changing, by the personal terminal, an NFT owner (note para. [0005]); transmitting, by the personal terminal, a traded NFT and information on a user of the traded NFT to the system server (note para. [0005], [0019]); transmitting, by the system server, an owner change history of the traded NFT to the blockchain main net (note para. [0005], [0019]); and storing, by the blockchain main net, the owner change history of the traded NFT (note para. [0005], [0019]) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne-Keats et al . in view of US 2024/0144294 A1 (hereinafter Fields et al .) Regarding claim 6 , Gagne-Keats et al . teaches a service providing system based on a non- fungible token (NFT), comprising: a system server (note figure 2.210; para. [0014], [0032], [0046]: server; management node etc.) configured to perform user authentication and confirmation through an application (note para. [0014], [0034]), and the system server being configured to perform an access and use authority assignment to an authenticated/confirmed authenticated or confirmed user (note para. [0034], [0037]: authenticating users for accessing NFT storage/ applications); at least one of or any combination one or more of a personal terminal, a vehicle, or an information change platform (note figure 2.202: vehicle/ physical asset NFT) being configured to provide data to the system server (note figure 2.210; para. [0032], [0046]: server; management node etc.) through a n off chain transaction (note para. [0032], [0041]); and a blockchain main net configured to receive data processed by the system server and obtained through the off chain transaction (note para. [0023], [0032], [0041]), and the blockchain main net being configured to apply received data to a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is configured to record or update metadata of the NFT on a blockchain based on the received data (note para. [0016], [0023], [0039]: smart contract associated with NFT transaction; updating of NFT information) and update metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment (note para. [0040], [0041]: updated metadata of the NFT assets in a metaverse) Gagne-Keats et al . fails to teach expressly a blockchain main net configured to receive the data processed by the system server and obtained through the off chain transaction and the blockchain main net being configured to apply the received data to a smart contract. However, Fields et al . teaches a blockchain main net configured to receive the data processed by the system server and obtained through the off chain transaction (note para. [0090], [0101]: verifying data received from off-chain sources) and the blockchain main net being configured to apply the received data to a smart contract (note para. [0090], [0101]: blockchain manager receiving smart contract from external sources) Fields et al and Gagne-Keats et al . are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing NFT/ vehicle ownership information using blockchain network. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Gagne-Keats et al . method to further include the features of a blockchain main net configured to receive the data processed by the system server and obtained through the off chain transaction and the blockchain main net being configured to apply the received data to a smart contract in order to provide users with an efficient and improved mechanism for verifying on-chain or off-chain transactions data utilizing a smart contract rules/ conditions (note Fields et al , para. [0090]) Regarding claim 7, Gagne-Keats et al . teaches the system of claim 6, wherein in response to an NFT character and a user avatar being used in an environment of accessing a metaverse server through the personal terminal or the vehicle (note para. [0041] -[0042]: non-fungible physical asset in a metaverse; avatar/ virtual object for authentication), the personal terminal or the vehicle is configured to provide new data generated in relation to the NFT character and the user avatar on a metaverse to the system server (note para. [0042]: an avatar of a user in a metaverse) Regarding claim 8, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 7, furthermore, Gagne-Keats et al teaches the system wherein the system server is configured to update information on the NFT character and the user avatar changed in the metaverse (note para. [0024], [0042]: virtual object) Furthermore, Fields et al . teaches wherein the system server is configured to receive the new data from the personal terminal or the vehicle through the off chain transaction (note para. [0090], [0101]: verifying data received from off-chain sources) Regarding claim 9, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 7, furthermore, Fields et al . teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising an information change platform configured to create and collect data on a vehicle history (note para. [0042], [0043]), and the information change platform being configured to provide the data to the system server through the off chain transaction (note para. [0042], [0043]) Regarding claim 10, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 7, furthermore, Fields et al . teaches the system wherein the data on the vehicle history includes data on one of or any combination of tuning of the vehicle, an accident of the vehicle, or a maintenance of the vehicle (note para. [0042], [0043]: NFT metadata including historical data) Regarding claim 11, Gagne-Keats et al teaches the system wherein the system server is configured to transmit the data on the vehicle history to the blockchain main net (note para. [0023], [0041]), wherein the blockchain main net is configured to apply the data on the vehicle history to a smart contract (note para. [0023]), and wherein the smart contract is configured to record and/or update the metadata of the NFT on the blockchain based on the data on the vehicle history (note para. [0023] –[0024]) Regarding claim 12, Gagne-Keats et al teaches the service providing system of claim 6, further comprising: a provider server (note figure 2.206; para. [0014], [0032]: server; access point etc.) configured to have an information change authority on the blockchain (note para. [0014], [0034]); and an authentication server (note figure 2.210; para. [0032], [0046]: manager node ) configured to assign a provider authentication key to the provider server (note para. [0034], [0037]: authenticating users for accessing NFT storage/ applications) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. in view of Gagne-Keats et al . further in view of US 2024/0144294 A1 (hereinafter Fields et al .) Regarding claim 5, Modified Gagne-Keats et al-Hua et al method fails to teach expressly the method wherein the NFT minting is performed after a start time of a production process of the vehicle. However, Fields et al . teaches the method wherein the NFT minting is performed after a start time of a production process of the vehicle (note para. [0046]: manufacturer minting a NFT for each new vehicle) Fields et al . and Hua et al are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing vehicle ownership information. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to further modify Gagne-Keats et al-Hua et al method to further include the features of wherein the NFT minting is performed after a start time of a production process of the vehicle since such arrangement would provide users with an improved and secure mechanism for managing vehicle ownership information by minting vehicle specific NFT at device/ vehicle manufacturing time (note Fields et al ., para. [0046]) Regarding claim 13, Hua et al. teaches a method comprising: creating a hash value based on user information for a vehicle, vehicle unique identification of the vehicle, and vehicle information for the vehicle (note para. [0048], [0050], [0070]: generating authentication sequence or user profile by hashing vehicle identifier, user/ application identifier etc.); generating a non-fungible token (NFT) associated with a vehicle by using the user information, the vehicle information, and the hash value (note para. [0019], [0040], [0077]: NFT comprising vehicle and owner information); storing the NFT on a blockchain, wherein the NFT is associated with a smart contract configured to record and update metadata of the NFT on the blockchain (note para. [0040]: NFT related smart contracts), wherein the metadata includes one of or any combination of current vehicle owner information of the vehicle, tuning of the vehicle, accident history of the vehicle, or maintenance history of the vehicle (note para. [0005], [0019]: NFT comprising historical ownership information); and updating the metadata of the NFT via the smart contract on the blockchain (note para. [0005], [0040]) Hua et al. fails to teach expressly storing and updating the metadata of the NFT via the smart contract on the blockchain; and wherein updating the metadata of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment. However, Gagne-Keats et al . teaches updating the metadata of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment (note para. [0040], [0041]: updated metadata of the NFT assets in a metaverse) Hua et al. and Gagne-Keats et al . are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing NFT/ vehicle ownership information using blockchain network. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Gagne-Keats et al . method to further include the features of updating the metadata of the NFT includes updating metadata of the NFT based on a change of character data generated in a metaverse environment in order to provide users with an improved mechanism for issuing NFT including updated metadata information that can be used to authenticate a user in a multiverse environment ( note Gagne-Keats et al ., para. [0042] – [0043]) Modified Gagne-Keats et al.- Hua et al. method fails to teach expressly storing and updating the metadata of the NFT via the smart contract on the blockchain; However, Fields et al . teaches storing and updating the metadata of the NFT via the smart contract on the blockchain (note para. [0041] - [0043]: updating NFT smart contract and metadata including historical data ) Fields et al and Hua et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing NFT/ vehicle ownership information using blockchain network. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to further modify Gagne-Keats et al .- Hua et al . method to include the features of the method wherein the updating of the metadata is based on an off-chain transaction in order to provide users with an efficient mechanism for verifying either of on-chain or off-chain transactions data utilizing updated NFT metadata or associated smart contract information (note Fields et al , para. [0090]) Regarding claim 14, Hua et al. fails to teach expressly the method wherein the updating of the metadata is based on an off-chain transaction. However, Fields et al . teaches the method wherein the updating of the metadata is based on an off-chain transaction (note para. [0090], [0101]: verifying data received from off-chain sources) Fields et al and Hua et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securely managing NFT/ vehicle ownership information using blockchain network. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Hua et al . method to further include the features of the method wherein the updating of the metadata is based on an off-chain transaction in order to provide users with an efficient mechanism for verifying either of on-chain or off-chain transactions data utilizing updated NFT metadata or associated smart contract information (note Fields et al , para. [0090]) Regarding claim 15, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising generating an owner private key for an owner of the vehicle (note para. [0045], [0050], [0070]: private key associated with the vehicle) Regarding claim 16, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising accessing the metadata of the NFT of the vehicle on the blockchain using the owner private key (note para. [0045], [0050]) Regarding claim 17, Hua et al. teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising trading the NFT using the owner private key (note para. [0045], [0050]) Regarding claim 18, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 13, furthermore, Hua et al teaches the method further comprising generating a maintenance private key for a maintenance server provider of the vehicle (note para. [0045], [0050], [0070]: private key associated with the vehicle) Furthermore, Fields et al . teaches wherein the maintenance private key can be used to update metadata of the NFT on the blockchain (note para. [0044] – [0045]: maintenance updates) Regarding claim 19, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 13, furthermore, Fields et al teaches the method wherein the generating of the NFT is performed at a beginning of production of the vehicle (note para. [0046]: manufacturer minting a NFT for each new vehicle) Regarding claim 20, Hua et al teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the generating of the NFT is performed after a production process of the vehicle (note para. [0019], [0040]: generation of NFTs and smart contract for automatic execution of a transaction) Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. 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 RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SHANTO ABEDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494 Application/Control Number: 18/894,359 Page 2 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 18/894,359 Page 3 Art Unit: 2494
Prosecution Insights