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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 02/19/2025 and 12/01/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the forms PTO-1449 are enclosed herewith.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the claims originally filed on 12/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 were examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 2-7, 8A and 8B: Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See MPEP 608.02 V (p) (3). Examiner notes multiple text instances in this drawing do not comply with this requirement.
Figs. 2-7, 8A and 8B: multiple text labels and descriptions are placed upon shaded surfaces and are not plain and legible. See MPEP 608.02 V (p).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 4 and 18 recite “causing… a token to be automatically generated using a distributed ledger”, a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. In addition, claims 1, 4 and 18 are method claims and recite “wherein the interaction involves receipt of data at the mobile device through the interaction...”, language directed to not positively recited method steps.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a method, claims 4-17 are directed to a method, and claims 18-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Specifically, the language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. “receiving an indication of an interaction between a mobile/user device and an interactive element, wherein the interaction involves receipt of data at the mobile/user device through the interaction”;b. “determining, based on context data and based on the mobile/user device storing the data in response to the interaction, that a predetermined condition is met”;c. “causing, in response to the predetermined condition being met, a token to be automatically generated using a distributed ledger”; andd. “associating the token/digital object with the mobile device.”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo two-part test (see MPEP 2106.04). The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of placing an order based on displayed market information. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element(s) of the claims include: computer, memory, processor, distributed ledger, mobile/user device. Specifically, with respect to using computer, memory, processor to perform the recited steps/functions, these additional elements performs the steps or functions such as: “receiving… indication…”, “determining… condition is met…”, “causing… token/object to be… generated…”, “associating… token/object with… device…”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. The claims further recite the additional elements: distributed ledger, mobile/user device. However, these elements merely serve to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as computer, memory, processor, distributed ledger, mobile/user device. The computer, memory, processor perform the steps/functions of “receiving… indication…”, “determining… condition is met…”, “causing… token/object to be… generated…”, “associating… token/object with… device…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process With respect to the remaining additional elements of a , these additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-17, 19 and 20 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
e) wherein the interactive element is an optical code, and wherein the interaction involves the mobile/user device scanning the optical code using an optical scanner to read the data from the optical code. f) wherein the interactive element is a short-range wireless communication instrument, and wherein the interaction involves the mobile/user device receiving at least one wireless signal from the short-range wireless communication instrument in response to the mobile/user device being in proximity to the short-range wireless communication instrument. g) wherein the interactive element is a second user device associated with a second user. h) wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met includes determining availability of at least one computing resource. i) wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met is based on a comparison between a metric and a threshold. j) wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met is based on the data received at the user device in response to the interaction. k) receiving an input indicating a selection of the distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers, wherein causing the digital object to be automatically generated using the distributed ledger is based on the selection of the distributed ledger. l) further comprising: receiving an input indicating a selection of a second distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers; and transferring the digital object to the second distributed ledger is based on the selection of the second distributed ledger. m) wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain ledger. n) wherein causing the digital object to be automatically generated using the distributed ledger includes causing a new block to be generated and appended to the distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes information associated with the digital object. o) wherein the digital object is a non-fungible token (NFT). p) wherein the interactive element is coupled to a physical object, and wherein the digital object is associated with the physical object. q) wherein associating the digital object with the user device includes recording an association between the digital object and the user device in the distributed ledger.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. computer, memory, processor, distributed ledger, mobile/user device), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to claims 2, 5 and 19, the claims include language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the code is/the interaction involves. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 3, 6 and 20, the claims include language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the code is/the interaction involves. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 7, the claim includes language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the element "is" (i.e. device). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 8, Further, the claim recites item h) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining resource availability. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner considers the claim further elaborate on the mental process of collecting and analyzing information.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 9, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 10, This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 11, Further, the claim recites item k) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of receiving an input. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner considers the claim further elaborate on the mental process of collecting and analyzing information.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 12, Further, the claim recites item l) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of receiving an input and transferring object to a second ledger. This language is representative of the additional abstract idea of following instructions on how to perform a transfer. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 13, the claim includes language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the ledger "is" (i.e. blockchain ledger). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 14, the claim includes language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the new block "includes" (i.e. information). The claims further recite statements directed to intended use by describing causing a block to be generated and appended. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 15, the claim includes language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the object "is" (i.e. NFT). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 16, the claim includes language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the element "is" (i.e. coupled to object), the object is "associated with" (i.e. object). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 17, Further, the claim recites item q) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of recording an association. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 4 and 18. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language e- q) of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-17, 19 and 20 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, 4 and 18, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Copeland et al. (US 2023/0085677 A1), hereinafter Copeland.
With respect to claims 1, 4 and 18, Copeland teaches a computer-implemented method; a system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor (see Fig. 1, computers 120, paragraph [0025]); and a computer-implemented method for interaction-based token generation (System for accessing non-fungible tokens) comprising:
receiving an indication of an interaction between a mobile/user device and an interactive element, wherein the interaction involves receipt of data at the mobile/user device through the interaction (see paragraph [0028]: “An access token 108 of the present disclosure may be used by the user 103 to verify ownership of an NFT 103 and may be issued by the access control system 104. For example, the access token 108 may be used by a user 103 to communicate identifying information specific to a given NFT 103 to the token reader 107 via a wired or wireless communications link 112. In one aspect, the token reader and access token communicate via wireless radio communication between transmitter and receiver circuitry in both the token reader 107 and access token 108. Signals transmitted between the token reader and the access token may be configured to define data useful for identifying a user, an NFT, or both, so that the access control system can 104 verify ownership and provide access to the NFT. The token reader may be configured to verify the access token 108 by interacting with the access control system 104 via communications link 114 and 110. Upon verification, the viewer 107 may obtain the NFT from database 106 and present the contents of the NFT to the user.”);
determining, based on context data and based on the mobile/user device storing the data in response to the interaction, that a predetermined condition is met (see paragraph [0045]: “The user may, for example, interact with computers 120 of the access control system which may be configured to accept proof of purchase credentials for the NFT. The computers 120 may generate or otherwise provide a user interface configured to accept user input defining one or more aspects of the purchase credentials. In another aspect, the computers 120 may include a personal computing device such as a smart phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop computer which optionally is configured to provide the user interface via an application such as an executable custom software program configured to automatically interact with server computers of the access control system 104. In another aspect, the server computers of the access control system may generate or provide a user interface via a web browser executing on the personal computing device of the user, such as by sending a web page to the personal computing device that is then automatically rendered by the web browser. Thus it may be said that the access control system of the present disclosure optionally includes personal computing devices operated by the user interacting, and/or remote servers configured to provide or deny access to an NFT.”; paragraph [0046]: “In another aspect, computers of the disclosed system may automatically authenticate an NFT at 305 based on identifying information provided by the user. This information may be obtained by accepting input from the user using any suitable computing device. Authenticating the NFT is optionally performed automatically by a computer, and the computer may automatically provide the verification data which includes user specific information identifying a user that is retained by the computer. For example, the information such as username, password, address, purchase information, biometric information, and the like, that may be stored in a smart phone or tablet computer may be automatically provided during the process of authenticating whether the user should be allowed to bind the NFT to an access token.”);
causing, in response to the predetermined condition being met, a token/digital object to be automatically generated using a distributed ledger (see unique ID or access key stored in 106, paragraph [0048]: “Binding the token to the NFT at 309 may include creating a unique ID or access key that is specific to the NFT, and optionally is also tied specifically to the owner. This access key can then be assigned to the access token, and is optionally written in a record of the access control database, or optionally in the database 106 the NFT is stored in, or both.... " see also paragraph [0027] describing database 106 as a distributed ledger.); and
associating the token/digital object with the mobile/user device (see paragraph [0048]: “Binding the token to the NFT at 309 may include creating a unique ID or access key that is specific to the NFT, and optionally is also tied specifically to the owner…"; smartphone geolocation data, paragraph [0049] and ownership update, paragraph [0050]: “In another aspect, the system may be configured to update ownership information of the NFT in the database 106, either automatically when the token is bound to the NFT, or optionally upon receiving specific input from a user initiating the ownership update. In another example, the disclosed system optionally ensures that the access control information for the particular NFT and the access token is also reflected in the blockchain ledger.”).
With respect to the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 1, 4 and 18 recite “causing… a token/object to be automatically generated using a distributed ledger” , a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. Lastly, claims 1, 4 and 18 are method claims and recite “wherein the interaction involves receipt of data at the mobile/user device through the interaction...”, language directed to not positively recited method steps.
With respect to claims 2, 5 and 19, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the methods and system as described above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 18. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a methods and system wherein the interactive element is an optical code, and wherein the interaction involves the mobile/user device scanning the optical code using an optical scanner to read the data from the optical code (see barcodes, QR-codes and the like, paragraph [0029], Fig. 5, paragraph [0056]).
With respect to claims 3, 6 and 20, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the methods and system as described above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 18. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a methods and system wherein the interactive element is a short-range wireless communication instrument, and wherein the interaction involves the mobile/user device receiving at least one wireless signal from the short-range wireless communication instrument in response to the mobile/user device being in proximity to the short-range wireless communication instrument (see a memory of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip or RFID cards, paragraph [0029]; Fig. 6, paragraph [0061]).
With respect to claim 7, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein the interactive element is a second user device associated with a second user (see paragraph [0030]: “In another aspect, the circuitry in the access token 108 may include NFC communications equipment such as an antenna, battery, processor or other control circuit, memory, a display device, or any combination thereof…"; paragraph [0060]: "...In another aspect, the access token may be a physical item such as a card, plaque, poster, or another computer with a screen to display a barcode. In another aspect, the access token may include a power source, a memory for retaining verification information and an NFT identifier or other information, as well as optionally including a transmitter coupled to an antenna for broadcasting information about the NFT to all nearby token readers.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the interactive element is a second user device associated with a second user”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
With respect to claim 8, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met includes determining availability of at least one computing resource (see “geolocation” or “location finding” system 121, paragraph [0034]: “In another aspect, the verification data optionally includes geolocation data defining a specified area. The token reader 107 may be configured to access a “geolocation” or “location finding” system 121. This location finding system my use any suitable location finding technology or system including but not limited to the Global Positioning System (GPS), WiFi, cellular networks, radio beacon transmitters, or other devices configured to determine a location of the token reader. The access control system 104 may be configured to deny access to the NFT specified by the access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is outside the specified area. In another aspect, the access control system 104 may be configured to allow access to an NFT specified by an access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is inside the specified area.”; Examiner notes if the location resource is unavailable, access is denied.).
With respect to claim 9, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met is based on a comparison between a metric and a threshold (see specified area (threshold), location (metric), paragraph [0034]: “...The access control system 104 may be configured to deny access to the NFT specified by the access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is outside the specified area. In another aspect, the access control system 104 may be configured to allow access to an NFT specified by an access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is inside the specified area.”).
With respect to claim 10, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein determining that the predetermined condition is met is based on the data received at the user device in response to the interaction (see location data, paragraph [0034]: “In another aspect, the verification data optionally includes geolocation data defining a specified area. The token reader 107 may be configured to access a “geolocation” or “location finding” system 121. This location finding system my use any suitable location finding technology or system including but not limited to the Global Positioning System (GPS), WiFi, cellular networks, radio beacon transmitters, or other devices configured to determine a location of the token reader. The access control system 104 may be configured to deny access to the NFT specified by the access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is outside the specified area. In another aspect, the access control system 104 may be configured to allow access to an NFT specified by an access token 108 when the location of the token reader 107 is inside the specified area.”; GPS location determination by receiver device is described in paragraph [0166], inter alia.).
With respect to claim 13, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain ledger (see database 106, blockchain, paragraph [0027]).
With respect to claim 14, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein causing the digital object to be automatically generated using the distributed ledger includes causing a new block to be generated and appended to the distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes information associated with the digital object (see paragraph [0050]: “In another aspect, the system may be configured to update ownership information of the NFT in the database 106, either automatically when the token is bound to the NFT, or optionally upon receiving specific input from a user initiating the ownership update. In another example, the disclosed system optionally ensures that the access control information for the particular NFT and the access token is also reflected in the blockchain ledger.”; Examiner notes creating and appending blocks for updating information, such as ownership, is an inherent feature of a blockchain ledger.). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 14 recites “wherein the new block includes information associated with the digital object”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. In addition, claim 14 recites “causing a new block to be generated and appended to the distributed ledger” , a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II.
With respect to claim 15, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein the digital object is a non-fungible token (NFT) (see bound NFT, paragraph [0044]: “In another aspect, the disclosed system is optionally configured to bind an NFT to an access token. One example of actions the disclosed system may take to bind the token with an NFT are illustrated in FIG. 3. In one example, a user may not own an NFT at 301, and may optionally purchase an NFT at 302 such as via an NFT marketplace. In another aspect, the user may own an NFT at 304. In either case, the user may interact with the disclosed system to provide identifying information that may be used to access the NFT at 303.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 15 recites “wherein the digital object is a non-fungible token (NFT).”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 16, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein the interactive element is coupled to a physical object, and wherein the digital object is associated with the physical object (see paragraph [0060]: " In another aspect, the access token may be a physical item such as a card, plaque, poster, or another computer with a screen to display a barcode. In another aspect, the access token may include a power source, a memory for retaining verification information and an NFT identifier or other information, as well as optionally including a transmitter coupled to an antenna for broadcasting information about the NFT to all nearby token readers.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 16 recites “wherein the interactive element is coupled to a physical object, and wherein the digital object is associated with the physical object. ”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 17, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, Copeland disclose a method wherein associating the digital object with the user device includes recording an association between the digital object and the user device in the distributed ledger (see paragraph [0048]: “Binding the token to the NFT at 309 may include creating a unique ID or access key that is specific to the NFT, and optionally is also tied specifically to the owner. This access key can then be assigned to the access token, and is optionally written in a record of the access control database, or optionally in the database 106 the NFT is stored in, or both. In one aspect, the credentials may include purchase verification data specific to the NFT, which may include data generated by the NFT marketplace 102 uniquely identifying the NFT 103, the purchase transaction, or both. Other data related to the transaction may be accepted as input such as the date, time, name of the owner, and the like.”; MAC address or other computer identifier, paragraph [0049]).
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland (US 2023/0085677 A1), and in view of Jethmalani et al. (US 2023/0298001 A1), hereinafter Jethmalani.
With respect to claim 11, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Copeland et al. does not explicitly teach a method further comprising receiving an input indicating a selection of the distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers, wherein causing the digital object to be automatically generated using the distributed ledger is based on the selection of the distributed ledger.
However, Jethmalani discloses a method (Non-fungible token (NFT) purchase and transfer system) further comprising receiving an input indicating a selection of the distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers, wherein causing the digital object to be automatically generated using the distributed ledger is based on the selection of the distributed ledger (see Fig. 9, paragraph [0118]: “As shown in FIG. 9, process 900 begins in block 902, which includes receiving a second request to perform a second transaction involving a sale, via the NFT marketplace, of the NFT now owned by the first user to a specified destination address, e.g., an address corresponding to a buyer or digital wallet thereof. Process 900 then proceeds to block 904, which includes determining whether the specified destination address corresponds to the service provider.”; paragraph [0120]: “...if it is determined in block 904 that the specified destination address corresponds to the decentralized wallet of a third-party user (or buyer) who is not associated with the service provider, process 900 proceeds to block 910. Block 910 includes broadcasting the second transaction to the appropriate blockchain network to initiate a transfer of the NFT to the specified destination address corresponding to the decentralized wallet of the third-party user. The blockchain network in this example may be a network of nodes associated with the decentralized blockchain that corresponds to the NFT marketplace. Process 900 then proceeds to block 912, in which the NFT is transferred to the specified destination address corresponding to the decentralized wallet of the third-party user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the blockchain agnostic transfer as disclosed by Jethmalani in the method of Copeland, the motivation being to support any of various token standards for managing the creation and transfer of NFTs (see Jethmalani et al., paragraph [0104]).
With respect to claim 12, Copeland et al. teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 4. Copeland et al. does not explicitly teach a method further comprising: receiving an input indicating a selection of a second distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers; and transferring the digital object to the second distributed ledger is based on the selection of the second distributed ledger.
However, Jethmalani discloses a method (Non-fungible token (NFT) purchase and transfer system) further comprising:
receiving an input indicating a selection of a second distributed ledger from a plurality of distributed ledgers (see Fig. 9, paragraph [0118]: “As shown in FIG. 9, process 900 begins in block 902, which includes receiving a second request to perform a second transaction involving a sale, via the NFT marketplace, of the NFT now owned by the first user to a specified destination address, e.g., an address corresponding to a buyer or digital wallet thereof. Process 900 then proceeds to block 904, which includes determining whether the specified destination address corresponds to the service provider.”); and
transferring the digital object to the second distributed ledger is based on the selection of the second distributed ledger (see paragraph [0120]: “...if it is determined in block 904 that the specified destination address corresponds to the decentralized wallet of a third-party user (or buyer) who is not associated with the service provider, process 900 proceeds to block 910. Block 910 includes broadcasting the second transaction to the appropriate blockchain network to initiate a transfer of the NFT to the specified destination address corresponding to the decentralized wallet of the third-party user. The blockchain network in this example may be a network of nodes associated with the decentralized blockchain that corresponds to the NFT marketplace. Process 900 then proceeds to block 912, in which the NFT is transferred to the specified destination address corresponding to the decentralized wallet of the third-party user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the blockchain agnostic transfer as disclosed by Jethmalani in the method of Copeland, the motivation being to support any of various token standards for managing the creation and transfer of NFTs (see Jethmalani et al., paragraph [0104]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Literature
Jakobsson et al. (US 2023/0281583 A1) disclose systems and methods for the facilitation of blockchains, including an action governing a token from a first blockchain to a second blockchain.
Jackson et al. (US 2023/0205849 A1) disclose digital and physical asset tracking and authentication via non-fungible tokens on a distributed ledger, including generating an NFT for a physical asset that can be used to verify the authenticity of the physical asset. Asset information may also include a Radio Frequency Identification Tag (RFID) tag or a Quick Response (QR) code tag. The RF tag or the QR code may be used to uniquely identify a particular physical asset relative to other similar instantiations.
Spivack et al. (US 2022/0366061 A1) disclose validation of authenticity of association of a physical entity with a non-fungible token and creation of the non-fungible token having a verifiable association with the physical entity, including enabling authentication of unique association of a physical object with a non-fungible token and creating a non-fungible token on a distributed ledger network associated with a physical object.
Vosseller et al. (US 2023/0109574 A1) disclose fingerprinting physical items to mint NFTs, including receive user input via a user interface to initiate ownership transfer of an NFT from a user associated with a first client device to a user associated with a second client device, the devices being mobile devices.
Ambrose (US 2023/0368189 A1) discloses system and method for purchasing customized non-fungible tokens, including directing a customer towards an NFT marketplace via a QR code or an inaudible tone, where the customer purchases or sells an NFT.
Mccullough et al. (US 2023/0245137 A1) disclose blockchain systems and methods for protecting brands, operators and consumers against counterfeiting, including scanning a scannable code disposed on a packaging label of an item to be authenticated using the blockchain network and producing a data signal representing the scannable code.
Roffey (US 2023/0259936 A1) discloses system and method for using intelligent codes in conjunction with non-fungible tokens, including transacting a prepaid non-fungible token with an electronic mobile device that is used to electronically interface with a code, such as a QR code, bar code, RF signal or NFC signal, representing a prepaid product.
Yakovlev (US 2022/0300950 A1) discloses systems and methods for generating and transmitting digital proofs of ownership for purchased products, including techniques for generating and ascertaining proof of ownership of physical goods employing blockchain-based methodologies.
Castagna et al. (US 2024/0020692 A1) disclose payment redemption using non-fungible tokens, including an NFT, and/or data included within the NFT being machine-readable. Machine-readable data may be encrypted. Machine-readable data may be in the form of a QR code, barcode, steganography, or other machine-readable format that may be inaccessible or illegible to human eyes..
Non-Patent Literature
A. Gebreab et al. (NPL 2022, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose NFT-Based Traceability and Ownership Management of Medical Devices, including a QR code tag-NFT combination to serve effectively as a device authentication solution and completely prevent the circulation of counterfeit devices.
S. Bhadoria et al. (NPL 2022, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "V") disclose Secure and Traceable QR Code Using Blockchain-enabled Certificates, including implementation of Blockchain and QR code simultaneously for enhancing security.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698