DETAILED ACTION
Amendments submitted on July 16, 2026 for Application No. 18/948784 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On page 5, Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 rejections should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections; therefore, they have been withdrawn.
II) On pages 5-7, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are considered moot based on the new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent 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 1-6, 9-10, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 11075891) in view of Haddad (US 2023/0186291) and further in view of Berry (US 2024/0106649).
As per claims 1 and 17, Long discloses A system, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to (Long, col. 3 line 53-col. 4 line 42, teaches a medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor to perform steps.):
determine to generate a non-fungible token (NFT) for authenticating to [a service]; obtain user authentication credentials for a person associated with at least [the service]; generate the NFT including the authentication credentials for [the service] (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. Therefore, the NFT must have been generated using the credentials prior to the user using the NFT to access the service and there must have been some determination or instruction to generate the NFT. Additionally, as the credentials are included in the NFT, they must have been obtained at some point prior to the NFT generation. The Examiner would also note that one service can be interpreted as “some of the multiple services”.); and
use the NFT to provide access to [the service] (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data.)
However, Long does not specifically teach that the NFT is used “for authenticating to multiple services”.
Haddad discloses determine to generate a non-fungible token (NFT) for authenticating to multiple services; … generate the NFT … for at least some of the multiple services; and use the NFT to provide access to one of the multiple services (Haddad, Figure 5 and associated texts such as paragraphs 7-10, 39-40, 56-60, 66-67, 108, and 114-118, teaches assigning an NFT to a user to allow the user to use the NFT for authentication to access multiple services. Haddad, paragraphs 4 and 66, teaches using the NFT as a universal digital authenticator that can be used to access different locations and services. As shown above, as the NFT is used to access the services, it must have been generated prior to using the NFT to access the services and there must have been some determination or instruction to generate the NFT. Haddad, paragraphs 10, 41, 46, 57, 60, 70, and 114, teaches that the NFT can include various pieces of information “to authenticate the user”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT to include an authentication credential.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Haddad with the teachings of Long. Long teaches using an NFT containing a credential to access a single service. Haddad teaches using the same NFT to access multiple services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Long by allowing the same NFT to be used for multiple services to increase the security of the system by preventing the need for the user to have multiple NFTs or passwords as shown in Haddad paragraphs 2-5.
Claim 17 recites the additional limitations of “obtain entitlement information for a person associated with at least some of the multiple services … generate the NFT based at least on the entitlement information” (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. Therefore, the NFT must have been generated using the credentials prior to the user using the NFT to access the service. The Examiner would also note that the credentials can be considered as “entitlement information” as they entitle the user to access the services.)
However, Long in view of Haddad does not specifically teach “obtain user authentication credentials for a person associated with multiple of the multiple services; generate the NFT including the authentication credentials for the multiple of multiple services”.
Berry discloses obtain user authentication credentials for a person associated with multiple of the multiple services; generate the NFT including the authentication credentials for the multiple of multiple services (Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches obtaining multiple user credentials and storing the multiple user credentials in an authentication NFT.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Berry with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad. Long in view of Haddad teaches using an NFT to access multiple services. Berry teaches a single NFT can store multiple credentials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Long in view of Haddad by allowing the same NFT to store multiple credentials (as in Berry) as this would provide a single sign-on using a single NFT. This would have been a simple substitution of one known type of single-sign on NFT for another to yield the predictable results of the user having a single NFT that can provide the user with access to multiple services.
As per claim 2, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the authentication credentials includes login information (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches the NFT containing credentials. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches obtaining multiple user credentials and storing the multiple user credentials in an authentication NFT.)
As per claim 3, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to encrypt the user authentication credentials (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches the NFT containing credentials. Haddad, paragraphs 10, 41, 46, 57, 60, 70, and 114, teaches that the NFT can include various pieces of information “to authenticate the user”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT to include an authentication credential. Haddad, paragraphs 13, 45, 51, 54, and 71, teaches that the NFT can be encrypted. Therefore, the combination of references would teach encrypting the credentials. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches encrypting and decrypting the NFT containing the credentials.)
As per claim 4, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to: obtain a public key associated with a service of the multiple services; and encrypt information for the service of the multiple services in the NFT using the public key (Haddad, paragraphs 13, 45, 51, 54, and 71, teaches that the NFT can be encrypted. Haddad, paragraphs 33, 43-44, and 68 teaches the user signing messages using a public key to verify that the user is in possession of the NFT. As the NFT is used to access the services, this public key can be considered as “associated” with the services. As the messages are signed to prove possession of the NFT to obtain access to the services, the signed/encrypted messages can be considered as information for the services. Haddad, paragraph 115, also teaches the user securing the wallet containing the NFT with a cryptographic system that uses public and private keys.)
As per claim 5, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor uses the NFT to provide access to one of the multiple services by providing the NFT to the one of the multiple services (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. Haddad, Figure 5 and associated texts such as paragraphs 7-10, 39-40, 56-60, 66-67, 108, and 114-118, teaches assigning an NFT to a user to allow the user to use the NFT for authentication to access multiple services. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches authenticating the user using the credentials.)
As per claim 6, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor uses the NFT to provide access to one of the multiple services by associating the NFT with a token wallet that is associated with the person (Haddad, paragraphs 8-9, 26, 33, 40, 42-43, and 50, teaches that the NFT is stored in a wallet belong to the user.)
As per claim 9, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to generate at least one of billing or entitlement information by analyzing a blockchain associated with the NFT (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. The Examiner would note that the credentials can be considered as “entitlement information” as they entitle the user to access the services. The Examiner would note that determining the entitlement information from the NFT would involve analyzing the blockchain to receive the information. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, also teaches authenticating the user using the credentials.)
As per claim 10, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to embed entitlement information for one of the multiple services in the NFT (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. The Examiner would note that the credentials can be considered as “entitlement information” as they entitle the user to access the services. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, also teaches authenticating the user using the credentials.)
As per claim 12, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the one of the multiple services comprises a streaming service (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data.)
As per claim 18, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the NFT is usable to access the multiple services (Long, col. 9 lines 11-22, teaches an NFT containing credentials being used to authenticate a user to receive streaming data. Haddad, Figure 5 and associated texts such as paragraphs 7-10, 39-40, 56-60, 66-67, 108, and 114-118, teaches assigning an NFT to a user to allow the user to use the NFT for authentication to access multiple services. Haddad, paragraphs 4 and 66, teaches using the NFT as a universal digital authenticator that can be used to access different locations and services. Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches obtaining multiple user credentials and storing the multiple user credentials in an authentication NFT.)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Haddad, Berry, and further in view of Kurian (US 2023/0126386).
As per claim 7, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1.
However, Long in view of Haddad and Berry does not specifically disclose wherein the processor further executes the instructions to embed a link to a user authentication credential NFT in the NFT.
Kurian discloses wherein the processor further executes the instructions to embed a link to a user authentication credential NFT in the NFT (Kurian, abstract and paragraphs 4-5, teaches one NFT linking to another NFT containing credentials.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Kurian with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad and Berry. Long in view of Haddad and Berry teaches using an NFT containing credentials to access multiple services. Kurian teaches one NFT linking to another NFT containing credentials. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT of Long in view of Haddad and Berry to contain a link to another NFT containing the credentials instead of storing the credentials as this would have increased the security and reduced the likelihood of an attacker obtaining the credentials.
As per claim 8, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1.
However, Long in view of Haddad and Berry does not specifically disclose wherein the processor further executes the instructions to embed a link to an entitlement system in the NFT.
Kurian discloses wherein the processor further executes the instructions to embed a link to an entitlement system in the NFT (Kurian, abstract and paragraphs 4-5, teaches one NFT linking to another NFT containing credentials.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Kurian with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad and Berry. Long in view of Haddad and Berry teaches using an NFT containing credentials to access multiple services. Kurian teaches one NFT linking to another NFT containing credentials. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT of Long in view of Haddad and Berry to contain a link to another NFT containing the credentials instead of storing the credentials as this would have increased the security and reduced the likelihood of an attacker obtaining the credentials.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Haddad, Berry, and further in view of Kozloski (US 2018/0255130).
As per claim 11, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1.
However, Long in view of Haddad and Berry does not specifically disclose associate the NFT with a first electronic device; de-associate the NFT from the first electronic device; and associate the NFT with a second electronic device.
Kozloski discloses wherein the processor further executes the instructions to: associate the [data] with a first electronic device; de-associate the [data] from the first electronic device; and associate the [data] with a second electronic device (Kozloski, paragraphs 73 and 116, teaches associating and de-associating data from a particular device as well as associating and de-associating a device from the blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Kozloski with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad and Berry. Long in view of Haddad and Berry teaches using an NFT containing credentials to access multiple services. Kozloski teaches associating and de-associating data from a particular device as well as associating and de-associating a device from the blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the user of Long in view of Haddad and Berry to be able to associate and de-associated a particular device from being able to access the NFT and blockchain as this would increase the security of the system in the event that the user loses or sells their device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Haddad, Berry, and further in view of Macomber (US 2024/0154952).
As per claim 13, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The system of claim 1.
However, Long in view of Haddad and Berry does not specifically disclose wherein the multiple services comprises bundled services provided by a provider.
Macomber discloses wherein the multiple services comprises bundled services provided by a provider (Macomber, paragraph 15, teaches using credentials to access bundled services from a single provider.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Macomber with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad and Berry. Long in view of Haddad and Berry teaches using an NFT containing credentials to access multiple services. Macomber teaches that the multiple services can be bundled services from a single provider. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT of Long in view of Haddad and Berry to provide access to multiple services including bundled services from a single provider as this would have been a simple substitution of accessing services for accessing other bundles services to yield the predictable results of using the NFT/credentials to access the services.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad in view of Berry.
As per claim 14, Haddad discloses A method, comprising: determining to generate a non-fungible token (NFT) for authenticating to multiple services; generating the NFT; and using the NFT to provide access to one of the multiple services (Haddad, Figure 5 and associated texts such as paragraphs 7-10, 39-40, 56-60, 66-67, 108, and 114-118, teaches assigning an NFT to a user to allow the user to use the NFT for authentication to access multiple services. Haddad, paragraphs 4 and 66, teaches using the NFT as a universal digital authenticator that can be used to access different locations and services. As the NFT is used to access the services, it must have been generated prior to using the NFT to access the services and there must have been some determination or instruction to generate the NFT.)
However, Haddad does not specifically teach “obtaining user authentication credentials associated with multiple of the multiple services”.
Berry discloses obtaining user authentication credentials associated with multiple of the multiple services (Berry, Figure 6 and associated texts, teaches obtaining multiple user credentials in order to create the authentication NFT.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Berry with the teachings of Haddad. Haddad teaches using an NFT to access multiple services. Berry teaches a single NFT can store multiple credentials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Haddad by allowing the same NFT to store multiple credentials (as in Berry) as this would provide a single sign-on using a single NFT. This would have been a simple substitution of one known type of single-sign on NFT for another to yield the predictable results of the user having a single NFT that can provide the user with access to multiple services.
As per claim 15, Haddad in view of Berry discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the NFT does not include user authentication credentials for at least some of the multiple services (Haddad, paragraphs 10, 41, 46, 57, 60, 70, and 114, teaches that the NFT can include various pieces of information. However, Haddad does not specifically teach that this includes an authentication credential.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad, Berry, and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0351187).
As per claim 16, Haddad in view of Berry discloses The method of claim 14.
However, Haddad in view of Berry does not specifically disclose obtaining authentication proof; and allowing access to the NFT upon verifying the authentication proof.
Kim discloses obtaining authentication proof; and allowing access to the NFT upon verifying the authentication proof (Kim, paragraph 46, teaches authenticating the user before granting access to the NFT.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Haddad in view of Berry. Haddad in view of Berry teaches using an NFT to access multiple services. Kim teaches authenticating the user before granting access to the NFT. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Haddad in view of Berry by adding the authentication before granting access to the NFT for the purpose of ensuring the correct user is given access to the universal digital authenticator NFT.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Haddad, Berry, and further in view of Piccionelli (US 2005/0221841).
As per claim 19, Long in view of Haddad and Berry discloses The computer program product of claim 17.
However, Long in view of Haddad and Berry does not specifically disclose fourth instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by at least one processing unit to embed at least one limitation on at least one of the multiple services in the NFT.
Piccionelli discloses further comprising fourth instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by at least one processing unit to embed at least one limitation on at least one of the multiple services in the NFT (Piccionelli, paragraph 68, teaches restricting a data stream to certain geographic locations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Piccionelli with the teachings of Long in view of Haddad and Berry. Long in view of Haddad and Berry teaches using an NFT containing credentials to access multiple services such as a streaming service. Piccionelli teaches restricting a data stream to certain geographic locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the NFT of Long in view of Haddad and Berry to contain a limitation of restricting the stream to certain geographic locations in order to prevent unauthorized viewing of the data stream.
As per claim 20, Long in view of Haddad, Berry, and Piccionelli discloses The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the at least one limitation comprises at least one of a geographic limitation, a number of streams limitation, or a number of households limitation (Piccionelli, paragraph 68, teaches restricting a data stream to certain geographic locations.)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Davis (US 2023/0379179), paragraph 45, teaches a digital token acts as a password to grant access to a virtual asset.
Arora (US 2024/0046267), paragraph 35, teaches a stored value token having an entitlement to obtain an NFT.
Shapiro (US 2022/0309491), paragraph 53, teaches that an NFT can include a link to a password.
Binder (US 2024/0095720) – teaches generating an NFT.
Baker (US 2023/0266930), paragraph 23, teaches generating an NFT.
Ramde (US 2024/0420116), paragraph 73, teaches a user logging into an NFT application using single sign-on.
Finlow-Bates (US 2025/0028791), paragraph 261, teaches NFT entitlement tokens.
Conclusion
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 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 JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights