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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 112 rejection(s) have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims improve the ability of a computing systems to validate whether a user is an owner of a product, even when the user did not obtain the product from an entity associated with the computing system, as well as the ability of computing systems to access evaluations of a product.
The Office asserts that the criteria for integration into a practical application or significantly more includes improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), asserted improvements are evaluated as follows:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification.
According to 0005-0006 of the specification, the invention is directed to guaranteeing a purchase of a product or service using an NFT associated with a receipt for the product or service, and recording evaluation information in metadata of the NFT by the actual purchaser. The specification does not appear to include a discussion of a technical limitation and how the present invention overcomes this limitation, or otherwise provides an improvement as noted above in the MPEP.
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;
receive evaluation information about the product;
validate the writer of the evaluation information as an owner of the product based on metadata of the NFT associated with the receipt by further causing the processor to:
access identification information recorded by using the metadata of the NFT; and
compare the accessed identification information with identification information of the writer of the evaluation information; and
based on the validation of the writer of the evaluation information about the product, record the evaluation information about the product in metadata of the NFT associated with the receipt in one or more blocks managed by the blockchain network.
The above underlined elements represent a mental process because they perform an evaluation of data to validate that the writer of the evaluation of the product is an owner of the product.
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, an NFT, a digital file and a blockchain. The claims merely apply this evaluation to a particular field or technology (Blockchain/NFT) and similar to Flook, is insufficient to overcome the rejection. The smart contract/NFT/Blockchain are used to represent/store and transmit data related to the ownership of the receipt but these steps are generic computer implementation of blockchain networks. The recording step is insignificant extrasolution activity similar to updating an activity log in Ultramercial. 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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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