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 .
Claim Status
As of the Office Action of December 19, 2025 claims 22-40 were pending and claims 22-40 stood rejected. Claims 22-40 have been cancelled. Claims 41-60 have been added. Claims 41-60 are therefore currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with regard to the objection to the specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. Accordingly the objection is being withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection of claims 21-40 has been fully considered and is viewed as moot as claims 21-40 have been cancelled.
Priority
In the remarks filed on March 17, 2026 Applicant indicated that support for claims 41, 43, 45 and 47 could be found in Figures 1A-1B and 8 and the accompanying description. Figure 8 was not introduced until the continuation-in-part application 17/585,630 was filed on January 27, 2022. Therefore priority will only be extended until the filing data of January 27, 2022 for parent application 17/585,630.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 44-45 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 44 recites “…such that a user may access the digital good across the technically incompatible computer systems using the same identifier without re-issuance.” Claim 54 has a similar recitation MPEP § 2161.01 (I) which is directed towards computer-implemented functional claim limitations dictates that claims, including original claims “… may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” Paragraph 0119 of the written disclosure recites “If permitted, a user could own a digital good and then use it across the plurality of video games, optionally even if the technical implementations were not directly compatible.” This recitation only describes an obtained result of allowing access to the digital good amongst different computer systems but qualifies the allowing of access with the term “technically incompatible” without any underlying teaching or algorithm as to how the separation is accomplished or any description as to either how the different computer systems are determined to be technically incompatible or technically distinct or alternatively how the digital good adapts to the incompatibility such that it would be clear to those skilled in the art as to how the claimed invention is implemented. The written description merely states an achieved result without any details provided as to how the result is achieved, nor does the written description even describe the result in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill would instantly recognize how the inventor would have reached the claimed result. Therefore claims 44 and 55 are rejected under the written description requirement.
Claim 54 recites “…receiving, by the server, a request to use the digital good within a second computer system of the plurality that is technically distinct from the first computer system”. The written disclosure does not recite any instance of the term “technically distinct” or anything that can be construed as reading on the term. Therefore claim 54 is rejected as being directed towards newly introduced subject matter.
Claim 45 is also rejected as being dependent upon claim 44.
Claim 56 is also rejected as being dependent upon claim 55.
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.
Claim 44-45 and 54-56 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 54 recites “…receiving, by the server, a request to use the digital good within a second computer system of the plurality that is technically distinct from the first computer system”. The written disclosure does not recite any instance of the term nor is it immediately clear as to what the Applicant considers to be two “technically distinct” computer systems as the written disclosure describes different platforms in a manner that suggests that the different computer systems are commercially distinct and not necessarily technically distinct (0042 “…For example a character or a virtual good in World Of Warcraft can now live in Fortnight or Minecraft. Such a transfer or multi-platform existence can also be controlled by the brands the video games use on their platforms, and/or customized by the user.”, 0119 “…These parameters determine whether the virtual good may be used within a computer system such as that described with regard to Figure 7, whether as a type of computer system or a particular named computer system”). Therefore the term “technically distinct” is held as being indefinite. For purposes of claim interpretation the term will not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim 44 recites “wherein the parameter set controls whether the digital good may be instantiated in a second computer system of the plurality that is technically incompatible with a first computer system of the plurality in which the digital good was previously instantiated, such that a user may access the digital good across the technically incompatible computer systems using the same identifier without re-issuance.” Claim 55 contains a similar recitation. The written disclosure does not recite any instance of the term nor is it immediately clear as to what the Applicant considers to be two “technically incompatible” computer systems as the written disclosure describes different platforms in a manner that suggests that the different computer systems are commercially different and not necessarily technically incompatible (0042 “…For example a character or a virtual good in World Of Warcraft can now live in Fortnight or Minecraft. Such a transfer or multi-platform existence can also be controlled by the brands the video games use on their platforms, and/or customized by the user.”, 0119 “…These parameters determine whether the virtual good may be used within a computer system such as that described with regard to Figure 7, whether as a type of computer system or a particular named computer system”). Therefore the term “technically incompatible” is held as being indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes the scope of the term given that the written disclosure provides no meaningful guidance as to how two computers can be determined as being technically incompatible. For purposes of claim interpretation the term and any language related to the term will not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 41, 42, 44, 46-49, 51-52, 54-55 and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0318233).
As per claims 41 and 51
Martinez discloses a system for maintaining a continuous identity of a digital good across a plurality of technically distinct computer systems (0040 “In some embodiments, each token instance may be uniquely identified (e.g., a unique token identifier) by either a serialized number or a randomly generated number. In some embodiments, the unique token identifier may be 24 characters, or digits, in length. In some embodiments, this unique identifier is stored in a token instance record in a database.”)
Martinez discloses a server comprising a server processor and a server memory (0023 “Computer readable storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other solid state memory technology, optical storage, cloud storage, magnetic storage devices, or any other physical or material medium which can be used to tangibly store the desired information or data or instructions and which can be accessed by a computer or processor.”, 0024 “By way of example, and not limitation, the term “server” can refer to a single, physical processor with associated communications and data storage and database facilities, or it can refer to a networked or clustered complex of processors and associated network and storage devices, as well as operating software and one or more database systems and application software that support the services provided by the server.”)
Martinez discloses a persistent identifier connected to the digital good and stored in a storage system accessible to the server, wherein the identifier is separable from any particular representation or technical implementation of the digital good (0040 “In some embodiments, each token instance may be uniquely identified (e.g., a unique token identifier) by either a serialized number or a randomly generated number. In some embodiments, the unique token identifier may be 24 characters, or digits, in length. In some embodiments, this unique identifier is stored in a token instance record in a database.”, 0010 “As will be understood, embodiments disclosed herein may provide functionality to digital tokens and the respective token holders not only on a decentralized blockchain network, but on centralized, private servers maintained by a token issuer.”)
Martinez disclose a certification engine operated by the server processor according to codes stored in the server memory, configured to resolve the identifier against information stored in the storage system to authenticate the digital good within each of the plurality of computer systems (0061 “In some embodiments, system 100 may optionally include an authorization device 106 to validate an NFT or an attachment at a physical location. For example, in an embodiment, the authorization device 106 may be used to scan an attachment or a link to an attachment in order to access the attachment data or assert a digital right associated with the attachment at a venue (e.g., arena, theater).”)
Martinez discloses a parameter set associated with the identifier and stored in the storage system, wherein the parameter set governs whether and how the digital good may be accessed within each of the plurality of computer systems (0090 “In some embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an attachment type. In some embodiments, the attachment type may be a venue entry (e.g., the right to access a venue or event), a physical good (e.g., the right to purchase or obtain a physical good), a digital file (e.g., the right to access and/or download a digital file), a token, content (e.g., the right to access, download, and/or obtain content), apparel, a choice between two or more attachments, an early access purchase, and/or a combination thereof.”)
Martinez discloses wherein the server processor executes instructions stored in the server memory to maintain the connection between the identifier and the digital good across the plurality of computer systems without requiring re-issuance of the identifier when the digital good is transferred to or instantiated within a different computer system of the plurality (0049 “In some embodiments, an NFT is of the type specified by the Ethereum standards ERC-721 or ERC-1155.”) (Examiner notes that the ERC-721 by definition maintains the same tokenID throughout usage)
As per claims 42 and 52
Martinez discloses wherein the storage system comprises a blockchain, and wherein the connection between the identifier and the digital good is recorded on the blockchain as an immutable, append-only record, such that the connection is non-falsifiable and preserved across all transfers and uses of the digital good (0010 “As will be understood, embodiments disclosed herein may provide functionality to digital tokens and the respective token holders not only on a decentralized blockchain network, but on centralized, private servers maintained by a token issuer.”)
As per claims 44 and 55
Martinez discloses wherein the parameter set controls whether the digital good may be instantiated in a second computer system of the plurality In some embodiments, an initial holder of a token may access or assert attached data or digital right and then transfer the token instance to another holder. In those embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an indication that the attachment will be extended to subsequent holders of the associated with the attachment. That is, in some embodiments, new holders of the token, may also have access or be able to assert the attached data or digital right. In some embodiments, the server may maintain a record of whether an attachment instance (e.g., the attached data or digital right) has been accessed or asserted and/or whether the attached data or digital right is still available for access or assertion by the holder or to subsequent holders.”, 0090 “In some embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an attachment type. In some embodiments, the attachment type may be a venue entry (e.g., the right to access a venue or event), a physical good (e.g., the right to purchase or obtain a physical good), a digital file (e.g., the right to access and/or download a digital file), a token, content (e.g., the right to access, download, and/or obtain content), apparel, a choice between two or more attachments, an early access purchase, and/or a combination thereof.”)
As per claims 46 and 57
Martinez discloses wherein the server processor further executes instructions to record, in the storage system in association with the identifier, a plurality of transactions related to the digital good, the transactions comprising one or more of: creation of the digital good, association of the identifier with the digital good, transfer of the digital good through sale or licensing, and use of the digital good within a computer system of the plurality (creation 0033 “According to an embodiment, a token issuer first creates a token template (e.g., a record of structured digital data) from information provided by a user…In some embodiments, the server receives the data, creates the token template and stores the token template in a database as a token template record.”, association of the identifier 0038 “In some embodiments, the attachment data or digital right may be attached to a token by the association of an attachment template to a token template. Specifically, each attachment template may have its own unique attachment identifier (ID), and this ID may be stored in an attachment template record…In some embodiments, the attachments may be associated with the token templates by creating and storing a record in a database (e.g., by the issuer server).”, transfer 0091 “In some embodiments, an initial holder of a token may access or assert attached data or digital right and then transfer the token instance to another holder. In those embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an indication that the attachment will be extended to subsequent holders of the associated with the attachment. That is, in some embodiments, new holders of the token, may also have access or be able to assert the attached data or digital right. In some embodiments, the server may maintain a record of whether an attachment instance (e.g., the attached data or digital right) has been accessed or asserted and/or whether the attached data or digital right is still available for access or assertion by the holder or to subsequent holders.”, 0118 “According to an embodiment, to support repeated transfers of unique NFTs with associated attachments (e.g., through OpenSea) the server may make the attachment status of any attachment or attached data publicly available. In some embodiments, the server receives the unique NFT identifier either from a URL parameter appended to an attachment access address, or from a user (e.g., by entering it as text into a form field in attachment access page's user interface), or by any other method known or to be known. Then, in some embodiments, the server may search its database for the unique NFT identifier and obtains database records for the attachment instances.”, use 0091 “In some embodiments, an initial holder of a token may access or assert attached data or digital right and then transfer the token instance to another holder. In those embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an indication that the attachment will be extended to subsequent holders of the associated with the attachment. That is, in some embodiments, new holders of the token, may also have access or be able to assert the attached data or digital right. In some embodiments, the server may maintain a record of whether an attachment instance (e.g., the attached data or digital right) has been accessed or asserted and/or whether the attached data or digital right is still available for access or assertion by the holder or to subsequent holders.”)
As per claim 47
Martinez discloses wherein the plurality of transactions are recorded as append-only entries in the storage system such that prior transaction records are non-modifiable after recording, thereby preserving a complete and unbroken history of the digital good in association with the identifier across all computer systems of the plurality (0048 “Thus, some embodiments described herein allow, per the specification of the token or attachment data provider, to create a record of the token on a blockchain. As will be understood, a blockchain is a distributed ledger maintained by numerous (in some cases thousands) computing devices coordinating via cryptographic protocols to maintain an unalterable, synchronized copy of a database of identities, tokens, and transactions.”) (Examiner would note that the properties recited in the limitation would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be known properties of blockchains/distributed ledgers and that any prior art reciting blockchain/distributed ledger storage necessarily contains those properties.
As per claims 48 and 59
Martinez discloses wherein the server processor further executes instructions to monitor usage of the digital good across the plurality of computer systems and to record usage information in the storage system in association with the identifier (0091 “In some embodiments, an initial holder of a token may access or assert attached data or digital right and then transfer the token instance to another holder. In those embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an indication that the attachment will be extended to subsequent holders of the associated with the attachment. That is, in some embodiments, new holders of the token, may also have access or be able to assert the attached data or digital right. In some embodiments, the server may maintain a record of whether an attachment instance (e.g., the attached data or digital right) has been accessed or asserted and/or whether the attached data or digital right is still available for access or assertion by the holder or to subsequent holders.”, 0090 “In some embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an attachment type. In some embodiments, the attachment type may be a venue entry (e.g., the right to access a venue or event), a physical good (e.g., the right to purchase or obtain a physical good), a digital file (e.g., the right to access and/or download a digital file), a token, content (e.g., the right to access, download, and/or obtain content), apparel, a choice between two or more attachments, an early access purchase, and/or a combination thereof.”)
As per claim 49
Martinez discloses wherein a single identifier is associated with a plurality of different digital goods, and wherein the parameter set governs access to and use of each of the plurality of different digital goods across the plurality of computer systems (0040 “In some embodiments, each token instance may be uniquely identified (e.g., a unique token identifier) by either a serialized number or a randomly generated number. In some embodiments, the unique token identifier may be 24 characters, or digits, in length. In some embodiments, this unique identifier is stored in a token instance record in a database.”,
As per claim 54
Martinez discloses receiving, by the server, a request to use the digital good within a second computer system of the plurality In some embodiments, an initial holder of a token may access or assert attached data or digital right and then transfer the token instance to another holder. In those embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an indication that the attachment will be extended to subsequent holders of the associated with the attachment. That is, in some embodiments, new holders of the token, may also have access or be able to assert the attached data or digital right. In some embodiments, the server may maintain a record of whether an attachment instance (e.g., the attached data or digital right) has been accessed or asserted and/or whether the attached data or digital right is still available for access or assertion by the holder or to subsequent holders.”, 0118 “According to an embodiment, to support repeated transfers of unique NFTs with associated attachments (e.g., through OpenSea) the server may make the attachment status of any attachment or attached data publicly available. In some embodiments, the server receives the unique NFT identifier either from a URL parameter appended to an attachment access address, or from a user (e.g., by entering it as text into a form field in attachment access page's user interface), or by any other method known or to be known. Then, in some embodiments, the server may search its database for the unique NFT identifier and obtains database records for the attachment instances.”)
As per claim 58
Martinez discloses wherein creating the parameter set comprises determining at least one of: a limitation on a number of copies of the digital good associated with the identifier; a specification of which computer systems of the plurality are permitted uses of the digital good; or transfer rights governing sale or licensing of the digital good (0088 “In some embodiments, the request may include token specific information. In some embodiments, the token specific information includes a name, description, type of associated media, attachment, or benefit (e.g., image, video, and the like). In some embodiments, the request may include token corpus information. In some embodiments, the token corpus information may include the total number of tokens to be instantiated for a given token template.”,0090 “In some embodiments, the attachment specific information may include an attachment type. In some embodiments, the attachment type may be a venue entry (e.g., the right to access a venue or event), a physical good (e.g., the right to purchase or obtain a physical good), a digital file (e.g., the right to access and/or download a digital file), a token, content (e.g., the right to access, download, and/or obtain content), apparel, a choice between two or more attachments, an early access purchase, and/or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, for example where the attachment type is an early access purchase, the attachment specific information may include a purchase price and currency. In some embodiments, the attachment specific information may include a date range during which the attachment (e.g., a right to purchase, a download, access, etc.) may be accessed or asserted.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent 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 43, 45, 53 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claims 42, 44, 52 and 55 above, and further in view of Dalmia et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0201725, hereinafter referred to as Dalmia)
As per claims 43 and 53
Martinez does not explicitly disclose wherein the server processor further executes one or more smart contracts stored on the blockchain, wherein the smart contracts enforce the parameter set to govern whether the digital good may be accessed within each computer system of the plurality and whether the digital good may be transferred between computer systems of the plurality. Dalmia teaches wherein the server processor further executes one or more smart contracts stored on the blockchain, wherein the smart contracts enforce the parameter set to govern whether the digital good may be accessed within each computer system of the plurality and whether the digital good may be transferred between computer systems of the plurality (0516 “In some embodiments, intermediary server system 30 can associate one or more rights and/or privileges with the identification data, the identification code, NFT 144, and/or user 102, where such one or more rights and/or privileges can be defined, executed, and/or otherwise managed by a smart contract that can be associated with NFT 144 such as, for instance, smart contract 43.”, 0059 “By way of example, an NFT such as a badge or character may be awarded to or purchased by a first player via a first gaming channel. A smart contract for the NFT may define a set of rules or agreements that provide value in association with gameplay of the NFT. For instance, the smart contract may define a first set of player rewards in association with ownership of the NFT. The first set of player rewards may be associated with the NFT being in a first state after having initially being purchased or awarded. The smart contract may define a second set of player rewards in association with the NFT being in a second state. For example, the smart contract may define that a certain number of hours of play in association with the NFT or a certain level achieved in gameplay while displaying the NFT result in the NFT being in or otherwise associated with a second state. As a result of the associated awards, the NFT may have a different perceived value based on its associated state. The first player may elect to transfer all or partial ownership in the NFT to a second player. In some instances, a smart contract may further specify automated actions to occur upon transfer. For example, the smart contract may specify a fee to be paid to a third party (e.g., the NFT issuer) by one or more of the transferring parties if an ownership interest in the NFT is sold.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system for tracking data associated with a digital token of Martinez with the cross-channel blockchain and metaverse integration solutions for gaming systems of Dalmia for the purpose of providing transferrable instruments and the ability to record information relating to rewards and/or redemptions (Dalmia at 0009).
As per claims 45 and 56
Martinez, while disclosing the limitations of claims 44 and 55, does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of computer systems comprises at least two of: a virtual world, an online video game, an offline video game, a metaverse, a space within a metaverse, a virtual reality environment, or an augmented reality environment. Dalmia teaches wherein the plurality of computer systems comprises at least two of: a virtual world, an online video game, an offline video game, a metaverse, a space within a metaverse, a virtual reality environment, or an augmented reality environment (0588 “For instance, in this example embodiment, intermediary server system 30 can employ an augmented reality process and/or a virtual reality process to provide the metaverse gaming experience associated with the gameplay to user 102 participating in the gameplay while being located at the physical gaming device and/or in the physical gaming environment.”, 0055 “By way of example, a non-fungible token (NFT) can be actioned to a player through an electronic gaming machine (EGM), a lottery system, an online game, a social network, or other gaming channel. NFTs can be offered within the gaming computing environment in a variety of forms. NFTs can include representations of real-world digital assets, such as digital assets including gameplay characters or representations of state within a game.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system for tracking data associated with a digital token of Martinez with the cross-channel blockchain and metaverse integration solutions for gaming systems of Dalmia for the purpose of providing transferrable instruments and the ability to record information relating to rewards and/or redemptions (Dalmia at 0009).
Claims 50 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claims 41 and 51 above, and further in view of Andon et al. (U.S. Patent 11,032,072, hereinafter referred to as Andon)
As per claims 50 and 60
Martinez, while disclosing the limitations of claims 41 and 51, does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital good comprises a virtual representation associated with branding information of an originating brand, and wherein the identifier associates the branding information with the digital good such that the branding information is preserved and verifiable across the plurality of computer systems via the identifier and the certification engine. Andon teaches wherein the digital good comprises a virtual representation associated with branding information of an originating brand, and wherein the identifier associates the branding information with the digital good such that the branding information is preserved and verifiable across the plurality of computer systems via the identifier and the certification engine (7:48-52 “In some embodiments, a digital asset may be created for brand promotion purposes. In this embodiment, a digital shoe may be created in a preset and/or controlled limited quantity and distributed as part of a promotion, event, moment, or contest.”, 8:25-30 “In a footwear context, each unique token may be directly linked to a single CryptoKick object, which may be embodied as a virtual reproduction or digital-art version of a sneaker. In one embodiment, the token may include a 64-bit alphanumeric code that is sectioned into individual code segments.”, 8:45-51 “In a representative example, an authenticated pair of physical shoes are created and assigned a Unique Product Identifier (UPID). Upon purchase by a consumer, the UPID is used to unlock a cryptographic digital asset—a “CryptoKick”—composed of a collectible digital shoe and a unique non-fungible token (NFT) operating on a blockchain-based distributed computing platform.”, 14:21-33 “As a decentralized blockchain platform, computing system 30 operates as an open, yet encrypted peer-to-peer network in which asset transaction records—known as “blocks”—are linked via cryptographic hash functions in a distributed, immutable ledger of interconnected blocks, i.e., a “blockchain.” Each block in the chain includes one or more digital asset transactions accompanied by corroboration information representing a validity of each transaction as assessed by peer-validation devices. Encrypted, decentralized computing architectures allow for identity verification and authentication of transacted assets while preventing duplication of a cryptography-protected (“cryptographic”) digital asset registered to the platform”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system for tracking data associated with a digital token of Martinez with the system and method for providing cryptographically secured digital assets for the purpose of fulfilling the need for a retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market (Andon at 1:67-2:2)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D NIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5486. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 to 9:45 and 10:30 to 2:45.
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 at (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.
/JAMES D NIGH/ Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights