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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of April 6, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected claims 1-17 without traverse in response to restriction requirement. Claims18-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of “selling content, receiving payment, and distributing proceeds” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions” [sales activities, business relations) in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 13 recites “a method performed by an …, the method comprising:
issuing non-fungible token (NFT) related to first content;
receiving a request for a transaction of the first content based on a first … currency;
based on receiving the request for the transaction, identifying an … to which the NFT is allocated, using the NFT; and
based on the transaction, allocating a second … currency to the identified …”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of selling content, receiving payment, and distributing proceeds and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions, sales activities, business relations). Accordingly, claim 13 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “electronic device, virtual, electronic wallet” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 13 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 1 also recite the abstract idea of idea of selling content, receiving payment, and distributing proceeds and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions, sales activities, business relations) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “electronic device comprising: a communication circuit; memory storing instructions; and at least one processor operably coupled to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured, virtual, electronic wallet”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 2 and 14 recite “identifying, by the … and based on the first user attribute data, a … associated with the primary user;
transmitting, by the …, a primary user identification data request to the …;
receiving, by the … and based on the primary user identification data request, primary user identification data, wherein the primary user identification data comprises cryptographic information associated with one or more of the … or the …; and verifying, by the … and based on the primary user identification data, that the first smart mobile wallet is associated with the primary user” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 3 and 15 recite “executing, by … and based on the FLSA share request, a … authentication request, wherein the … authentication request is a request to authenticate the … associated with the primary user, and wherein authenticating the … comprises:
generating, by the .. and based on the … authentication request, a first … token;
transmitting, by the …, the first …token to an … associated with an… that provisioned the … to the primary user; and
receiving, by the … and from the …, a … validity response, wherein the … validity response is generated based on the first … token, and wherein the … validity response indicates verified credential data associated with the …; and
authenticating, by the …, the primary user based on the … validity response” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “memory” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 4 and 16 recite “obtain first feature points of the first content and second feature points of the one or more second contents, based on distance information between the first feature points and the second feature points, obtain the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, and based on the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, issue the NFT” which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first content is generated, based on a first object …in three (3) dimensions through a … corresponding to a user, and wherein the at least … to: based on information for displaying the first object and information for displaying one or more second objects, obtain the similarities between the first object and the one or more second objects, and based on the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, issue the NFT” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “configured, first external electronic device, at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured …” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites “wherein metadata of the NFT comprises information for displaying the first object” which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “… to: transmit, to a …, the information for displaying the first object, identified through the NFT, and display the first object through a display of the …, based on the information for displaying the first object” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured, second external electronic device” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites “… for generating the first object to the …” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “herein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to provide a platform, first electronic device” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the first content is … in two (2) dimensions in the platform based on the first object” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first … currency is used in a … for generating the first content, and wherein the second … currency is used except …” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “virtual and designated application” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 11 recites “ receive a transaction request for selling the first content to another user from a … corresponding to a first account of the user, based on the transaction request, allocate the first content to a second account of the another user, and allocate a profit based on the first … currency to the first account” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites “receive a request for transferring ownership of the NFT to another …, based on the request for transferring ownership of the NFT, allocate the NFT to the another …, and after the NFT is allocated to the …, allocate a profit based on usage of the NFT to the …” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “electronic wallet, another wallet” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the second … currency corresponds to the first … currency” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “virtual” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “allocate a profit based on usage of the NFT” – the specification never defines “usage of the NFT” or explains how such a profit would be calculated or allocated.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “allocate a profit based on usage of the NFT to the another wallet.” The phrase “usage of the NFT” is undefined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the second virtual currency corresponds to the first virtual currency.” The term “corresponds to” is vague and indefinite. A POSITA would not know what is required to satisfy “corresponds to”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the rejections under this section made in this Office action.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games.
Regarding claim 1, Mythical Games teaches electronic device comprising:
a communication circuit; memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor operably coupled to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: issue non-fungible token (NFT) related to first content ("Mythical Games" system includes a server-based marketplace with processors that issue NFTs for in-game items. “These items include avatars and accessories” that are minted as NFTs representing first content);
receive, via the communication circuit, a request for a transaction of the first content based on a first virtual currency, based on the received request for the transaction (“The Uphold integration allows Blankos Block Party players to use an array of supported cryptocurrencies in their Uphold wallet to purchase in-game items from Blankos Block Party sold by other players”. “The ability to buy and sell collectibles in their cryptocurrency”.
identify an electronic wallet to which the NFT is allocated (The money received from sales is automatically transferred to the user's Uphold wallet and can be cashed out to the user's preferred currency, traded for other cryptocurrencies, or sent to other crypto holders), and
based on the transaction, allocate a second virtual currency to the identified electronic wallet (The money received from sales is automatically transferred to the user's Uphold wallet and can be cashed out to the user's preferred currency, traded for other cryptocurrencies, or sent to other crypto holders). Claim 13 recites the method steps of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Mythical Games discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: receive a request for transferring ownership of the NFT to another electronic wallet, based on the request for transferring ownership of the NFT, allocate the NFT to the another wallet, and after the NFT is allocated to the another wallet, allocate a profit based on usage of the NFT to the another wallet. Mythical Games teaches “The money received from sales is automatically transferred to the user's Uphold wallet and can be cashed out to the user's preferred currency, traded for other cryptocurrencies, or sent to other crypto holders”. This inherently involves a transfer of ownership and allocation of proceeds to the recipient wallet. Secondary sales are standard in NFT marketplaces. The “profit based on usage” is simply the proceeds from a subsequent transfer, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games in view of Milam et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0043095 A1].
Regarding claims 2 and 14 , Mythical Games does not disclose however Milam teaches wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to, based on similarities between the first content and one or more second contents, issue the NFT (Milam 0045). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Milam. The rationale to combine the teachings to would be in automating originality checks which improves marketplace integrity.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Mythical Games does not disclose however Milam teaches wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: by inputting the first content and the one or more second contents to a model indicated by a plurality of parameters, stored in the memory, obtain the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents from the model, and based on the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, issue the NFT (Milam 0073). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Milam. The rationale to combine the teachings to would be in automating originality checks which improves marketplace integrity.
Regarding claim 5, Mythical Games in view of Milam disclose herein the first content is generated, based on a first object configured in three (3) dimensions through a first external electronic device corresponding to a user, and wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: based on information for displaying the first object and information for displaying one or more second objects (Mythical Games discloses “avatars and accessories created by artists and designers,” one of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that avatars are known to generated both in 2D and 3D, therefore this limitation is considered taught by Mythical Games). Milam teaches obtain the similarities between the first object and the one or more second objects, and based on the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, issue the NFT (0086, claim 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Milam. The rationale to combine the teachings to would be in automating originality checks which improves marketplace integrity.
Regarding claim 6, Mythical Games does not disclose however Milam teaches wherein metadata of the NFT comprises information for displaying the first object (Milam 0018 and figure 5). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Milam. The rationale to combine the teachings to would be in automating originality checks which improves marketplace integrity.
Regarding claim 7, Mythical Games in view of Milam disclose wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: transmit, to a second external electronic device, the information for displaying the first object, identified through the NFT, and display the first object through a display of the second external electronic device, based on the information for displaying the first object. Mythical Games teaches “players can purchase avatars, accessories, and other Blankos Block Party NFTs on the Mythical marketplace using an array of cryptocurrency in their Uphold wallet”.
Regarding claim 8, Mythical Games in view of Milam disclose wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to provide a platform for generating the first object to the first electronic device. Mythical Games teaches “include avatars and accessories created by artists and designers that have partnered with Mythical”.
Regarding claim 9, Mythical Games in view of Milam disclose wherein the first content is configured in two (2) dimensions in the platform based on the first object. (Mythical Games discloses “avatars and accessories created by artists and designers,” one of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that avatars are known to generated both in 2D and 3D, therefore this limitation is considered taught by Mythical Games). A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to generate a 2D representation from a 3D object for display purposes, as marketplace interfaces routinely utilize 2D previews.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games in view of Milam et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0043095 A1] and further in view of Jakobsson et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0117399 A1].
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Mythical Games does not disclose however Jakobsson teaches wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: obtain first feature points of the first content and second feature points of the one or more second contents, based on distance information between the first feature points and the second feature points, obtain the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, and based on the similarities between the first content and the one or more second contents, issue the NFT (Abstract, claim 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Jakobsson. The rationale to combine the teachings to would be to achieve originality verification, quality control, and automated NFT issuance in an NFT marketplace.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games in view of Holmes et al. [US Pub No. 2024/0013201 A1].
Regarding claim 10, Mythical Games does not explicitly disclose however Holmes teaches wherein the first virtual currency is used in a designated application for generating the first content, and wherein the second virtual currency is used except the designated application (Holmes 0002). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Holmes. The rationale to combine the teachings is based on a combination of prior art elements known in the art such as Mythical Games marketplace with the in-game cryptocurrency wallets architecture which yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games in view of Mehta et al. [US Pub No. 2008/0220876 A1].
Regarding claim 11, Mythical Games does not disclose however Mehta teaches receive a transaction request for selling the first content to another user from a first external electronic device corresponding to a first account of the user, based on the transaction request, allocate the first content to a second account of the another user, and allocate a profit based on the first virtual currency to the first account (Abstract, 0011). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Mehta. The rationale to combine the teachings is based on a combination of prior art elements known in the art such as Mythical Games marketplace with virtual items in online gaming which yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Mythical Games Teams Up with Uphold to Enable Crypto Payments on tis NFT Marketplace”, hereinafter Mythical Games in view of Chiang et al. [WO 2010/042100 A1].
Regarding claim 17, Mythical Games does not disclose however Chiang teaches wherein the second virtual currency corresponds to the first virtual currency (Chiang Abstract, pages 2-3) Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mythical Games to include teachings of Holmes. The rationale to combine the teachings is based on a combination of prior art elements known in the art such as Mythical Games marketplace with the online content trading system of Chiang which yield predictable results..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm est.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights