,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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/672,928, filed 7/18/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 12/16/2024, have been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 recite the phrase “NFT”; however, the acronym is not defined by the claims, the use of abbreviation “NFT” makes the claim ambiguous. Applicant is respectfully required to claim what “NFT” stands for before using the abbreviation. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “NFT” as a non-fungible token (NFT). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “on a user interface of the marketplace” in line 3 and should recite “on a user interface of [[the]]a marketplace.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the first image based on the learned model” in line 2 and should recite “the first image based on [[the]]a learned model.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “corresponds to the commission amount” in line 6 and should recite “corresponds to [[the]]a commission amount” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
control circuitry in claims 1-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the device, as claimed in claims 1-11, are directed to a machine, the system, as claimed in claim 12, is directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claim 13, is directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
generate a first image comprising one or more merchandise on each merchandise of the one or more merchandise;
display the generated first image;
receive a second input to select at least one merchandise of one or more merchandise, wherein the second input is based on an operation of the second user on the first image;
generate information associated with the selected at least one merchandise by the second user; and
display the generated information associated with the selected at least one merchandise.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because merchandise sales based on generated images is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 12 and 13 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 12 and 13 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A device for NFT-based merchandise sales, comprising:
control circuitry configured to:
generate a first NFT based on a first input from a first user;
generate a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first NFT on each merchandise of the one or more merchandise;
control a display device of a second user device to display the generated first image;
receive a second input from the second user device to select at least one merchandise of one or more merchandise, wherein the second input is based on an operation of the second user on the first image;
generate information associated with the selected at least one merchandise by the second user; and
control a display device of a third user device to display the generated information associated with the selected at least one merchandise.
In this case, representative claim 12 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A system for NFT-based merchandise sales, comprising:
a server comprising a control circuitry, wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
generate a first NFT based on a first input from a first user;
generate a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first NFT on each merchandise of the one or more merchandise;
control a display device of a second user device to display the generated first image;
receive a second input from the second user device to select at least one merchandise of one or more merchandise, wherein the second input is based on an operation of the second user on the first image;
generate information associated with the selected at least one merchandise by the second user; and
control a display device of a third user device to display the generated information associated with the selected at least one merchandise.
In this case, representative claim 13 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for NFT-based merchandise sales, comprising:
generating a first NFT based on a first input from a first user;
generating a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first NFT on each merchandise of the one or more merchandise;
controlling a display device of a second user device to display the generated first image;
receiving a second input from the second user device to select at least one merchandise of one or more merchandise, wherein the second input is based on an operation of the second user on the first image;
generate information associated with the selected at least one merchandise by the second user; and
control a display device of a third user device to display the generated information associated with the selected at least one merchandise.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (by a “server”, by a “device comprising control circuitry”, displaying on “display device” of a “user device”, receiving input “via a user device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (displaying information, receiving information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 13 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0021]- [0023], [0031]- [0037], [0053], [0068]-[0069]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21 and 27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 12, and 13, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 13 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 13 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 12, and 13 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 12, and 13 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 11
Dependent claim(s) 11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 11 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claim 11 sets forth:
wherein a third user is a manufacturer of the first merchandise corresponding to the first NFT.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of merchandise sales based on generated images. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1.
Thus, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2-10
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 sets forth:
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: receive a third input from the first user; and control the display device to display the first NFT on a user interface of a marketplace.
further comprises an image database includes a plurality of images of the one or more merchandise.
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the first image based on the first NFT and the plurality of images from the image database.
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the first image based on the learned model.
wherein the operation of the second user includes a touch operation, swipe operation, drag operation, or click operation on at least one merchandise from the one or more merchandise in the first image.
wherein the first input from the first user is at least to mint an NFT on a blockchain or associate an NFT wallet comprising one or more NFTs, and the first user is an NFT creator or an owner.
wherein the information associated with the selected at least one merchandise is displayed as a notification, message, audio notification, or video notification.
wherein the notification includes details associated with the selected at least one merchandise with the first NFT.
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: determine first price information of the selected at least one merchandise with the first NFT; and generate second price information, wherein the second price information corresponds to a commission amount for the first user.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of merchandise sales based on generated images. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a user interface”, an “image database”, “a learned model”, “a touch operation, swipe operation, drag operation, or click operation”, “mint an NFT on a blockchain”, “audio notification, or video notification”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0021]- [0023], [0031]- [0037], [0041], [0053], [0068]-[0069] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “a user interface”, an “image database”, “a learned model”, “a touch operation, swipe operation, drag operation, or click operation”, “mint an NFT on a blockchain”, and “audio notification, or video notification” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US 7,016,865 B1) in view of Pene (US 2023/0334472 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weber et al., hereinafter Weber, discloses a device for artwork merchandise sales (abstract), comprising:
control circuitry (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 4-63 in view of col. 3, lines 22-57) configured to:
generate a first artwork based on a first input from a first user (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line 18 [artist is comparable to a first user]);
generate a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first artwork on each merchandise of the one or more merchandise (col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48);
control a display device of a second user device to display the generated first image (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line 18 [customer/user computer is comparable to a second user device], col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48);
receive a second input from the second user device to select at least one merchandise of one or more merchandise, wherein the second input is based on an operation of the second user on the first image (col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48);
generate information associated with the selected at least one merchandise by the second user (Figs. 1-2; col. 7, line 60 to col. 9, line 27); and
control a display device of a third user device to display the generated information associated with the selected at least one merchandise (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line 18 [vendor computers are comparable to a third user device]; col. 5, lines 18-44, col 7, lines 53-59, col. 9, lines 22-27, col. 10, lines 34-40 , col. 21, lines 1-8, and col. 21, lines 39-43).
While Weber discloses a device for artwork merchandise sales, generating a first artwork, and generating a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first artwork, Weber does not explicitly disclose a device for NFT-based merchandise sales, generating an NFT based on a first input from a first user, and generating a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first NFT on each merchandise. However, in the field of pairing physical assets to a non-fungible token (abstract) Pene teaches a device for NFT-based merchandise sales (Figs. 1-2; ¶0046, ¶0082 and ¶¶0103-0107), NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068), generating an NFT based on an input and generating a first image comprising one or more merchandise with the generated first NFT (¶¶0039-0040, ¶0042, ¶0047, ¶0049, ¶¶0071-0076). The device of Pene is applicable to the device of Weber as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to orders that are placed over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the artwork as taught by Weber with the NFT artwork as taught by Pene. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the device of Weber in order to keep up with the rising interest and demand for NFTs, including NFTs of various art items (¶0038).
Regarding claim 2, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1. Weber further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
receive a third input from the first user (col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line 18, col. 5, line 17 to col. 6, line 26); and
control the display device to display the first artwork on a user interface of a marketplace (col. 3, lines 58-65).
While Weber discloses artwork, Weber does not explicitly disclose the artwork is an NFT. However, Pene teaches NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1, Weber further discloses further comprises an image database includes a plurality of images of the one or more merchandise (col. 5, lines 45 to col. 6, line 28, col. 9, lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 4, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 3, Weber further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the first image based on the first artwork and the plurality of images from the image database (col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48).
While Weber discloses artwork, Weber does not explicitly disclose the artwork is an NFT. However, Pene teaches NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 4, Weber further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the first image based on the learned model (col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48; personalization design constraints is comparable to learned model).
Regarding claim 6, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1, Weber further discloses wherein the operation of the second user includes a touch operation, swipe operation, drag operation, or click operation on at least one merchandise from the one or more merchandise in the first image (col. 5, line 28 to col. 7, line 48).
Regarding claim 7, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1. Pene further teaches wherein the first input from the first user is at least to mint an NFT on a blockchain or associate an NFT wallet comprising one or more NFTs, and the first user is an NFT creator or an owner (Fig. 1; ¶¶0038-0042). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1, Weber further discloses wherein the information associated with the selected at least one merchandise is displayed as a notification, message, audio notification, or video notification (Figs. 1-2; col. 7, line 60 to col. 9, line 27, col. 10, lines 34-40 , col. 21, lines 1-8, and col. 21, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 9, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 8, Weber further discloses wherein the notification includes details associated with the selected at least one merchandise with the first artwork (Figs. 1-2; col. 7, line 60 to col. 9, line 27, col. 10, lines 34-40 , col. 21, lines 1-8, and col. 21, lines 39-43).
While Weber discloses artwork, Weber does not explicitly disclose the artwork is an NFT. However, Pene teaches NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 9. Weber further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
determine first price information of the selected at least one merchandise with the first artwork (col. 12, lines 21-24); and
commission for the first user (col. 6, lines 22-24).
While Weber discloses artwork and a commission for the artist, Weber does not explicitly disclose the artwork is an NFT and generate second price information, wherein the second price information corresponds to the commission amount. However, Pene teaches NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068) and generating a second price information, wherein the second price information corresponds to the commission amount (¶0093). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Weber in view of Pene teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a third user is a manufacturer of the first merchandise corresponding to the first artwork (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line 18 [vendors are comparable to a third user]; col. 5, lines 18-44, col 7, lines 53-59, col. 9, lines 22-27, col. 10, lines 34-40 , col. 21, lines 1-8, and col. 21, lines 39-43).
While Weber discloses artwork, Weber does not explicitly disclose the artwork is an NFT. However, Pene teaches NFTs can be based on artwork (¶0038, ¶0068). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Weber are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claims discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claim 12 is directed to a system and claim 13 is directed to a process. The added element of “a server comprising a control circuitry” is also taught by Weber (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 4-63 in view of col. 3, lines 22-57). Therefore, claims 12 and 13 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art of claim 1.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “Economics of Nonfungible Tokens” discloses a wide variety of applications in diverse settings for companies and customers to use NFTs in product and marketing strategies including giving away products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688