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 .
Acknowledgements
The reply filed 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 have been canceled Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 are pending and being presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 6 and 20 in the reply filed 03/23/2026 have rendered the claim objections to claims 6 and 20, set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 12/23/2025, moot.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15, filed on 03/23/2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 12/23/2025. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn for the following reasons:
The claimed invention as a whole applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) because receiving a redemption request from a browser, encoding payment information in a web page, and sending the web page with the encoded payment information to the same browser from which the request was received requires a particular machine, and therefore, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 12-14, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martinez U.S. 2022/0318233.
In response to the remarks that “claim 1 becomes unreasonable as you would be searching for a gift card number using a gift card number,” searching for a data point using the same data point is not unreasonable when the objective is to determine whether such data point exists in a database. Arora et al. U.S. 2019/0130387 discloses executing a query based on receiving one or more data values or query strings, i.e. searching using the NFT identifier, to identify a data value stored in a block of the blockchain, which may include a specific gift card number, i.e. stored value payment instrument, corresponding to a gift card number included in a transfer request [0040], i.e. NFT identifier. Therefore, a gift card number can reasonably read on an “NFT identifier.” Snyder et al. U.S. 2010/0299194 (herein as “Snyder”) was used to teach “encode the payment information of the stored value payment instrument in a web page” in at least [0114]-[0115]. A virtual gift card code can also reasonably read on “payment information” since the gift card code is used to pay for purchases Snyder, [0014]. Furthermore, the claim limitations have broadly recited “NFT identifier” and “payment information,” and is not reciting any further limitations that preclude this interpretation. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks against Arora is not persuasive.
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 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) in view of Martinez U.S. 2022/0318233, in view of Arora et al. U.S. 2019/0130387 (herein as “Arora”), and further in view of Snyder et al. U.S. 2010/0299194 (herein as “Snyder”).
Re Claims 1, 8, and 15, Yantis discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory [0992]; and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least [0992] –“non-transitory memory that stores methods, codes, instructions, and programs…”:
receive a redemption request comprising a non-fungible token (NFT) identifier associated with an NFT […] ([0904] – “The redemption request may include the token or an identifier of the token,” [0700] – “the set of tokens…includes non-fungible tokens”), wherein the redemption request is submitted from a browser executed on a client device […] ([0904] – “The redemption system 404 may receive a request to redeem (or “redemption request”) the token,” [0841] – “A user device may access the platform 100 via a website,” i.e. submitted from a browser executed on a client device, platform 100 includes the transaction system 106, which includes the redemption system 404, see at least Figs. 1 and 4);
verify a user who submitted the redemption request is associated with an owner of the NFT based at least in part on an NFT owner public key ([0904] – “the redemption system 404 may provide the token, the public address of the user attempting to redeem the token, and the public key used to digitally sign the token to the ledger management system 104…The ledger management system 104 may verify the token/public address combination if the token is deemed valid and the requesting user is deemed to be the owner of the token,” the ledger management system 104 and redemption system 404 are part of the platform 100, see at least Figs. 1 and 4);
search for an email address […] based at least in part on the verification of the user being associated with the owner of the NFT ([0905] – “In response to verifying the token/public address combination…look up an email address of the user form the distributed ledger”).
However, Yantis does not expressly disclose the following limitations in italics
an NFT that specifies a redemption uniform resource locator, wherein the redemption request is submitted from a browser executed on a client device using the redemption uniform resource locator specified in the NFT.
Martinez discloses a system for tracking data associated with a digital token. Specifically, Martinez discloses
an NFT that specifies a redemption uniform resource locator, wherein the redemption request is submitted from a browser executed on a client device using the redemption uniform resource locator specified in the NFT (Fig. 7, [0004], [0033], [0120] – NFT includes a URL that allows the owner of the NFT to access the asset).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis’ tokenization platform with the teachings of using the redemption uniform resource locator specified in the NFT in Martinez. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide additional functionality to the owner of the NFT Martinez, [0004].
However, Yantis in view of Martinez do not explicitly teach the following limitations in italics
search for a stored value payment instrument using the NFT identifier from the redemption request based at least in part on the verification of the user being associated with the owner of the NFT.
Arora discloses a method for secure usage of a gift card via blockchain. Specifically, Arora discloses
search for a stored value payment instrument using the NFT identifier from the redemption request based at least in part on the verification of the user being associated with the owner of the NFT ([0040] – “The querying module 214 may receive one or more data values or query strings (i.e. NFT identifier), and may execute a query string based thereon on an indicated database to identify information stored therein…The querying module 214 may…execute a query on the memory 206 to identify a data value stored in a block of the blockchain 208, which may include a specific gift card number (i.e. stored value payment instrument) corresponding to a gift card number included in a transfer request (i.e. NFT identifier from the redemption request), for identification of data in the data value for verification prior to…redemption of the related gift card.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis in view of Martinez’s tokenization platform with the teachings of searching for a stored value payment instrument in Arora. One would be motivated to make the combination to identify the gift card number for verification prior to redemption of the gift card, thereby preventing fraudulent transfer and usage of the gift card and ensuring redemption by the proper recipient Arora, [0004], [0040].
However, Yantis in view of Martinez and Arora do not explicitly teach
encode payment information of the stored value payment instrument in a web page; and
send the web page encoded with the payment information to the browser executing on the client device.
Snyder discloses systems and methods for implementing and managing gift cards. Specifically, Snyder discloses
encode the payment information of the stored value payment instrument in a web page [0114] – “The virtual gift card code (i.e. payment information) may be provided in the email to the recipient, either directly or encrypted…in some encoded form,”; and
send the web page encoded with the payment information to the browser executing on the client device ([0115] – “the email to the recipient may include a link that the recipient may click on to view a webpage provided by the virtual gift card provider. The webpage likewise may include the [a] display of the recipient’s virtual gift card…in an encoded form,” [0014] – “The recipient receives, for example in email or in a web browser, a notification of the virtual gift card”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis’ in view of Martinez and Arora’s redemption system with teachings of encoding the payment information of the stored value payment instrument in a web page and sending the web page to the browser executing on the client device in Snyder. One would be motivated to make this combination to minimize the risk of unauthorized use of the gift card.
Re Claims 5, 12, and 19, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder teach the system of claim 1, and Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder further teach wherein the redemption request comprises the NFT owner public key Yantis, [0904] – “The redemption request may include the token or an identifier of the token…may further include the public key used to digitally sign the token.”
Re Claims 21, 23, and 25, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder teach the system of claim 1, and Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder further teach wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to render the NFT non-transferable based at least in part on the verification of the user being associated with the owner of the NFT (Yantis, [0890] – “Burning tokens may refer to the mechanism by which a token is deemed no longer redeemable. A token may be burned when the token expires or when the token is redeemed,” i.e. based at least in part on the verification of the user being associated with the owner of the NFT).
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) in view of Martinez U.S. 2022/0318233, in view of Arora et al. U.S. 2019/0130387 (herein as “Arora”), in view of Snyder et al. U.S. 2010/0299194 (herein as “Snyder”) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Heath et al. U.S. 2020/0313897 (herein as “Heath”).
Re Claims 2, 9, and 16, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder teach the system of claim 1, however, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder do not explicitly teach wherein the machine-readable instructions that cause the computing device to verify the user who submitted the redemption request is associated with the owner of the NFT further causes the computing device to at least:
send a challenge to the client device, the challenge comprising a generated token.
Heath discloses blockchain-based authentication and authorization. Specifically, Heath discloses
send a challenge to the client device, the challenge comprising a generated token [0040] – “the server may generate a challenge content…the challenge content may be an arbitrary string of bits such as a random sequence of letters and/or numbers.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder’s redemption system with teachings of sending a challenge to the client device, the challenge comprising a generated token in Heath. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable more efficient and more accurate user identification Heath, [0024].
Re Claims 3, 10, and 17, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, Snyder, and Heath teach the system of claim 2, and Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, Snyder, and Heath further teach wherein the machine-readable instructions that further cause the computing device to at least:
receive a signed version of the challenge from the client device Heath, [0040] – “The client may send the signature (i.e., the hash of the challenge content) back to the server”; and
verify a signature of the signed version of the challenge based at least in part on the NFT owner public key Heath, [0040] – “Using the public key, the server can authenticate a user associated with the client by decoding the hash and confirming that it generates the original challenge content.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder’s redemption system with teachings of receiving a signed version of the challenge from the client device and verifying a signature of the signed version of the challenge based at least in part on the NFT owner public key in Heath. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable more efficient and more accurate user identification Heath, [0024].
Re Claims 4, 11, and 18, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, Snyder, and Heath the system of claim 2, and Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, Snyder, and Heath further teach wherein the generated token is a randomly generated token in response to the receiving the redemption request Heath, [0040] – “the challenge content may be an arbitrary string of bits such as a random sequence of letters and/or numbers,” the challenge content is generated in response to a request.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder’s redemption system with teachings of the generated token being a randomly generated token in Heath. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis et al. U.S. 2021/0248594 (herein as “Yantis”) in view of Martinez U.S. 2022/0318233, in view of Arora et al. U.S. 2019/0130387 (herein as “Arora”), in view of Snyder et al. U.S. 2010/0299194 (herein as “Snyder”) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Lerner et al. U.S. 2013/0197980 (herein as “Lerner”).
Re Claims 22 and 24, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder teach the system of claim 1, however, Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder do not explicitly teach wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to remove the NFT identifier from a record of the stored value payment instrument based at least in part on the web page encoded with the payment information being sent to the browser executing on the client device.
Lerner discloses a transaction processing system to authorize promotion redemption. Specifically, Lerner discloses
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to remove the NFT identifier from a record of the stored value payment instrument based at least in part on the web page encoded with the payment information being sent to the browser executing on the client device ([0006] – “causing a promotion database to designate the promotion as redeemed comprises causing removal of a promotion identifier correlated with the promotion from the promotion database,” the promotion database is analogous to a record, promotion identifier is analogous to the NFT identifier, and the identifier is removed based on the promotion being redeemed, which is analogous to the payment information being sent to the browser executing on the client device, i.e. redeemed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yantis in view of Martinez, Arora, and Snyder’s redemption system with the teachings of removing the identifier after redemption in Lerner. One would be motivated to make this combination to prevent a promotion from being redeemed more than once.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rice U.S. 2021/0279695 directed to system and methods for item acquisition by selection of a virtual object placed in a digital environment. See at least [0038].
Seaver et al. U.S. 2022/0351198 directed to automated blockchain address creation and transfers by uniform resource locator generation and execution. See at least [0033], [0105].
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 CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights