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 a first office action on the merits, in response to the claims filed on November 27, 2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of categorizing non-fungible token (NFT) without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
In the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to a method, claims 7-12 are directed to a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces, and claims 13-18 are directed to one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 7 is directed to a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to, which performs a series of steps: “create one or more non-fungible token (NFT) categories in a template registry, wherein the template registry comprises a clause template registry, an NFT licensing template registry, and a smart contract template registry; fetch a plurality of tangible clauses and a plurality of intangible clauses for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a plurality of clauses defined in a clause metadata repository, wherein each of the plurality of tangible clauses and each of the plurality of intangible clauses defines one or more licensing rules for each of the one or more NFT categories, and are stored in the clause template registry; assign a predefined parameter value to each of the plurality of tangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, creating a place holder to each of the plurality of intangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, and storing in the clause template registry; create a NFT licensing template for each of the one or more NFT categories, using the plurality of tangible clauses and the plurality of intangible clauses, wherein each NFT licensing template created for each of the one or more NFT categories comprises a unique template identity (ID) and audit data, and is stored in the NFT licensing template registry; generate a smart contract template dynamically, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a smart contract metadata, using the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories, wherein the smart contract metadata is received from a smart contract metadata repository; and store the smart contract template generated dynamically for each of the one or more NFT categories, in the smart contract template registry.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of categorizing non-fungible token (NFT) (with the exception of the italicized terms above), which correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles. The system limitations, e.g., memory, one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces, and one or more hardware processors do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 7 such as a memory, one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces, and one or more hardware processors are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the memory, one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces, and one or more hardware processors performs the steps or functions of: “create one or more non-fungible token (NFT) categories in a template registry, wherein the template registry comprises a clause template registry, an NFT licensing template registry, and a smart contract template registry; fetch a plurality of tangible clauses and a plurality of intangible clauses for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a plurality of clauses defined in a clause metadata repository, wherein each of the plurality of tangible clauses and each of the plurality of intangible clauses defines one or more licensing rules for each of the one or more NFT categories, and are stored in the clause template registry; assign a predefined parameter value to each of the plurality of tangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, creating a place holder to each of the plurality of intangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, and storing in the clause template registry; create a NFT licensing template for each of the one or more NFT categories, using the plurality of tangible clauses and the plurality of intangible clauses, wherein each NFT licensing template created for each of the one or more NFT categories comprises a unique template identity (ID) and audit data, and is stored in the NFT licensing template registry; generate a smart contract template dynamically, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a smart contract metadata, using the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories, wherein the smart contract metadata is received from a smart contract metadata repository; and store the smart contract template generated dynamically for each of the one or more NFT categories, in the smart contract template registry.” The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces, and one or more hardware processors limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can be extended to the independent claim 1 and hence, claim 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 7. The newly identified additional element of one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Thus, claim 13 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 7.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18
Claims 2, 8 and 14 recite: wherein each clause of the plurality of clauses defined in the clause metadata repository, comprises clause details having a clause category, a unique clause identity (ID), a clause condition statement, and one or more response options provided for the clause condition statement, and are stored in the clause template registry.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite: wherein generating the smart contract template dynamically, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on the smart contract metadata using the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories, comprising: fetching a smart contract business expression (SCBR) function name, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a unique clause ID associated with each of the plurality of tangible clauses; defining a clause condition statement for each unique clause ID associated with each of the plurality of tangible clauses, for each of the one or more NFT categories, by an administrator; extracting a function type, one or more parameters and one or more datatypes for each unique clause ID associated with each of the plurality of tangible clauses, for each of the one or more NFT categories; creating a unique SCBR function hook for each unique clause ID associated with each of the plurality of tangible clauses, using the clause expression, the function type, the one or more parameters, and the datatypes, for each of the one or more NFT categories; and applying the unique SCBR function hook, on the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories by the administrator, to generate the smart contract template, and signing the smart contract template by the administrator, for each of the one or more NFT categories.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 recite: selecting, via the one or more hardware processors, the NFT licensing template based on an NFT category chosen by a creator, by mapping with the unique template identity (ID), from the NFT licensing template registry; choosing, via the one or more hardware processors, one or more tangible clauses out of the plurality of tangible clauses and one or more intangible clauses out of the plurality of intangible clauses, for the NFT licensing template, based on the one or more licensing rules, to create a custom NFT licensing template; allowing, via the one or more hardware processors, the creator to enhance the custom NFT licensing template, using the clause details in the clause template registry by adding (i) the one or more tangible clauses chosen out of the plurality of tangible clauses, (ii) the one or more intangible clauses chosen out of the plurality of intangible clauses stored in the clause template registry, to add one or more custom clauses to the custom NFT licensing template; allowing, via the one or more hardware processors, the creator to provide a parameter value to (i) each of the one or more tangible clauses chosen, and (ii) the one or more custom clauses added, in the place holder associated to each clause; storing, via the one or more hardware processors, (i) the parameter value provided to each of the one or more tangible clauses chosen, and the one or more custom clauses added, in the place holder associated to each clause, and (ii) each of the one or more intangible clauses chosen, to generate in a unique linked list for the custom NFT licensing template; generating, via the one or more hardware processors, the smart contract, based on the unique linked list by the creator; identifying, via the one or more hardware processors, a target blockchain platform and a crypto address for a deployment of the smart contract; and deploying, via the one or more hardware processors, the smart contract generated for a NFT getting created.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 recite: deploying, via the one or more hardware processors, the smart contract generated for the NFT getting created, to execute for subsequent sales, after signing by the creator.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 recite: requesting, via the one or more hardware processors, the administrator by the creator, to add one or more new tangible clauses and one or more new intangible clause, when the plurality of tangible clauses and a plurality of intangible clauses for each of the one or more NFT categories are not sufficient.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claims 1, 7 and 13; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-18 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 7 recites, “a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to:”. However, claim 9 which is dependent on claim 7 recites, the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to generate the smart contract template dynamically, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on the smart contract metadata using the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories, by:
defining a clause condition statement for each unique clause ID associated with each of the plurality of tangible clauses, for each of the one or more NFT categories, by an administrator;
applying the unique SCBR function hook, on the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories by the administrator, to generate the smart contract template, and signing the smart contract template by the administrator, for each of the one or more NFT categories.
It is unclear to one of the ordinary skill in the art, whether the “administrator” or the system, comprising: …one or more hardware processors performing these limitations. Furthermore, it is unclear to one of the ordinary skill in the art, whether the “administrator” is part of the structured claimed system, comprising: …one or more hardware processors or the “administrator” is separate from the claimed system, comprising: …one or more hardware processors.
For purposes of examination and in light of the originally-filed specification, the Examiner interprets the “administrator” as module being executed by the one or more hardware processors of the claimed system, see originally-filed specification para [0032] and Fig. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Over Prior Art for claims 1-18
George Shiping Hu (US 20240202721 A1) generally discloses, a method performed by an NFT platform includes generating NFT secondary file information relating to a digital file and the NFT, wherein the NFT secondary file information comprises a content ID of the digital file stored in a data storage, wherein the data storage is a permanent and immutable data storage. The method may also include the NFT platform generating an NFT metadata file comprising the content ID of the digital file stored in the data storage, storing the NFT metadata file and the NFT secondary file information in the data storage, generating a smart contract of the NFT comprising a link to a content ID of the NFT metadata file stored in the data storage, and deploying the smart contact to a distributed ledger system.
Khoa Le (US 20230419283 A1) generally discloses, methods to enable the formation and operation of a marketplace for non-fungible tokens. An NFT offered through the marketplace may be associated with underlying content. The underlying content may be one or more of an image, a photograph, an original work of art, a composition, a literary work, a recording, an item of manufacture, a motion picture, or a television program. The system provides a mechanism for multiple parties involved in the creation, production, ownership, distribution, exhibition, and use of content to have payments automatically routed from the appropriate paying party to the appropriate receiving party because of logic executed by a smart contract. This is particularly useful where underlying content may be the subject of different types of distribution, exhibition, and/or licensing agreements depending upon the nature of the content, the relevant intellectual property rights (such as copyrights), and the business model of the relevant industry.
Preska Thomas (US 20240289898 A1) generally discloses, a system for utilizing non-fungible tokens to track movement of goods through supply chains is provided. The system comprises a computer and an application executing thereon that creates a smart contract for deployment on a blockchain, the smart contract directed to defining rules for non-fungible tokens (NFT), wherein each NFT represents a unique agricultural product. The system also programs the smart contract to capture and store data in the NFTs about the products. The system also programs the smart contract to include algorithms in the NFTs for tracking movement of the products through their supply chains. The system also deploys the smart contract in the blockchain. The blockchain stores data describing transactions comprising at least one of product identity, quantity of units of product, and points along the supply chain of the product during the transactions.
Kyle Mistele (US 20230245102 A1) generally discloses, NFTs are used to provide software licensing and DRM in a manner that is transferrable, allowing licensees to swap and resell licensed software according to terms specified by the licensor. NFTs are used to prove ownership of software and other digital assets on a blockchain. The blockchain provides a distributed public ledger that enables the tracking of ownership of the assets, without the use of a centralized server. Since software and other digital content licenses concern digital assets, they can be granted, tracked, and revoked on the blockchain via the use of NFTs. NFTs and the blockchain therefore provide a mechanism which is used to verify and authenticate software licenses, digital content licenses, and other types of licenses for digital assets. Smart contracts may be used to define and enforce the terms of the licenses, at any level of granularity.
SLIWKA et al. (US 20250156828 A1) generally discloses, methods for facilitating interoperability between blockchain networks to facilitate bridging of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) across chains. In embodiments, a method includes receiving a bridging request at a first bridge smart contract to transfer a source NFT from a first blockchain to a second blockchain. Upon verification, the first bridge smart contract locks the source NFT. An oracle server determines whether a clone NFT associated with the source NFT exists on the second blockchain. If so, the oracle instructs a second bridge smart contract to unlock the clone NFT. If no clone NFT exists, the oracle instructs minting of the clone NFT and assigning ownership of the clone NFT to the user's account on the second blockchain. The clone NFT remains controllable by the user while the source NFT stays locked on the first blockchain, maintaining a one-to-one relationship between the tokens across chains.
However, prior art does not disclose, neither singly nor in combination all of the specific combination of claims limitations which includes:
creating, via one or more hardware processors, one or more non-fungible token (NFT) categories in a template registry, wherein the template registry comprises a clause template registry, an NFT licensing template registry, and a smart contract template registry;
fetching, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of tangible clauses and a plurality of intangible clauses for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a plurality of clauses defined in a clause metadata repository, wherein each of the plurality of tangible clauses and each of the plurality of intangible clauses defines one or more licensing rules for each of the one or more NFT categories, and are stored in the clause template registry;
assigning, via the one or more hardware processors, a predefined parameter value to each of the plurality of tangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, creating a place holder to each of the plurality of intangible clauses created for each of the one or more NFT categories, and storing in the clause template registry;
creating, via the one or more hardware processors, a NFT licensing template for each of the one or more NFT categories, using the plurality of tangible clauses and the plurality of intangible clauses, wherein each NFT licensing template created for each of the one or more NFT categories comprises a unique template identity (ID) and audit data, and is stored in the NFT licensing template registry;
generating, via the one or more hardware processors, a smart contract template dynamically, for each of the one or more NFT categories, based on a smart contract metadata, using the NFT licensing template associated with each of the one or more NFT categories, wherein the smart contract metadata is received from a smart contract metadata repository; and
storing, via the one or more hardware processors, the smart contract template generated dynamically for each of the one or more NFT categories, in the smart contract template registry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 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, 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 on (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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699