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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A method of processing a non-fungible token (NFT) by an electronic device, the method comprising:
executing a smart contract to process an NFT associated with a receipt by a processor of the electronic device connected to a computer network including a blockchain network, wherein the smart contract comprises one or more instructions, and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the processor to:
identify a digital file regarding a receipt related to a purchase of a product and an issuance request for an NFT associated with the receipt;
issue, in response to the identified issuance request, the NFT associated with the receipt;
identify evaluation information about the product; and
based on a writer of the evaluation information about the product being a purchaser that performs the purchase of the product, record the evaluation information about the product in metadata of the NFT associated with the receipt.
The above underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions, sales activity because the claims are directed to providing an NFT for a purchase.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims include. The additional elements being an electronic device including a processor and connected to a network, the electronic device executing a smart contract and a digital file and a blockchain. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons
Claims 2 and 18 recite storing the digital file in a distributed file system and recording an address where the digital file is stored, which is a further narrowing of the abstract idea and adding the words “apply it”.
Claims 3 and 19 similarly narrow the abstract idea by recording further data in the metadata.
Claims 4 and 20 recite further determination steps regarding the owner of the NFT and the writer of the evaluation being the same and merely further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites identifying the writer is the holder of the NFT based on a wallet address of the writer which is a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites storing the evaluation information in the distributed file system and record an address where the evaluation is stored which is a further narrowing of the abstract idea with the words “apply it”.
Claim 7 recites not storing the evaluation information based on the writer not being the purchaser of the product which is a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites verifying if the write is the purchaser of the product based on obtained identifying information of the writer which is a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites a repurchase of the NFT and recording the wallet address of the repurchaser, a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites an additional receipt regarding a repurchase of the NFT and issuing the NFT associated with the repurchase, a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites recording information about the NFT associated with the additional receipt, a further narrowing of the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites combining the original and repurchased NFT, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 recites information included in the metadata, information included in the evaluation and information included in the receipt, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 and includes many aspects of the independent claims above in addition to a reward to the purchaser account upon recording of the evaluation information, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “a repurchase” but depends on claim 9 which also recites “a repurchase”. Claim 10 should recite “the repurchase” to clarify that the repurchase is the same and not different from that of claim 9.
Closest prior art:
Yakovlev – 2022/0030950 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING AND TRANSMITTING DIGITAL PROOFS OF OWNERSHIP FOR PURCHASED PRODUCTS - discloses creating an NFT associated with purchase information on a blockchain (Para’s. 12-13) and discloses the use of smart contracts in some aspects of the invention (Para. 64) but not particularly in the creation of the NFT as described in the claims.
Yakovlev does not disclose evaluation/review information provided by the purchaser of the product and recording the evaluation information in metadata of the NFT.
Yagi discloses review NFTs where users who provide product reviews in the form of NFTs may be compensated based on future purchase of those products. Future purchasers may also create review NFTs.
Yagi does not disclose reviews by purchasers which are added as metadata to the NFTs linked to the purchase receipts of the items/products.
Yagi - NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM AND MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR REVIEW NFT EXECUTED IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE - WO 2023163575 A1
Abstract
A management method for a review non-fungible token (NFT), performed by a computing apparatus, according to an embodiment of the present invention, comprises the steps of: a platform server receiving, via a social network, a search request for goods or services to be traded; the platform server loading a review NFT for the goods to be traded; the platform server loading an order system connected to the review NFT; if a purchase request is received via the loaded order system, the platform server identifying and tracking information of an owner of the review NFT; the platform server providing a reward to the owner of the review NFT; a user creating a review NFT for purchased goods or services to be traded; and issuing the review NFT on a blockchain network.
Step S160 may be a step of creating a new review NFT and issuing it to a blockchain network, when the consumer who has purchased the product wants to establish a new review NFT rather than simply consuming it.
6 is a flowchart illustrating a method of managing a review NFT performed by a computing device according to another embodiment. Referring to FIG. 6, the management method includes the user generating a preliminary review NFT in the purchase decision-making step (S210), the user generating a central review NFT after purchase (S220), and the user creating a product or service in the same product or service. A step of connecting one preceding review NFT and a central review NFT with a side chain (S230), a step of generating a post review NFT after additional consumption by the user (S240), a preceding review NFT created by the user in the same product or service, a central review It may include connecting the NFT and the trailing NFT to the side chain (S250).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights