CTNF 19/064,885 CTNF 99430 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-10 submitted on 02/27/2025 are pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application No. JP2024-053502, filed on 03/28/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 1 Claims 1-8 are directed to a system, claim 9 is directed to a process, and claim 10 is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03). Step 2A, Prong 1 Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: an information processing apparatus comprising: analyze a credibility of a seller of an item used by a first user in a space on the basis of a trade history sold by the seller; and present the credibility of the seller to the seller to a second user. The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. Claims 9 and 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2 Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded: an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to ; analyze a credibility of a seller of an item tokenized by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) used by a first user in a metaverse space on the basis of a trade history of the NFTs sold by the seller; and present the credibility of the seller and a link to the seller to a second user. Claims 9 and 10 include the same additional elements as claim 1. In addition, claim 10 includes additional elements such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute processing . The additional elements recited in claims 1, 9, and 10 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of NFTs and metaverses (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Fig. 5 and ¶0030). As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are acknowledged, claims 1, 9, and 10 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 9, and 10 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 9, and 10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05). As such, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are ineligible. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 10. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are ineligible. Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 10: using an artificial intelligence (AI) (Claim 5). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, dependent claim 5 is ineligible. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 10,460,359 B1) in view of Rice et al. (US 2024/0242287 A1) . Regarding Claim 1 , Huang et al., hereinafter, Huang, discloses an information processing apparatus comprising : at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Col. 8, lines 50-55[For example, the system may include one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the steps shown in FIGS. 3A and/or 3B]); analyze a credibility of a seller of an item used by a first user in a space on the basis of a trade history sold by the seller (Figs. 2C and 3B; Col. 8, line 4 to Col. 9, line 10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224… An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace. As shown in FIG. 4, the transaction data 400 may include information relating to, e.g., a buyer ID 401, a seller ID 402, a transaction date 403, a transaction value 404, an On-Time Delivery (OTD) indicator 405, a buyer-supplied rating of the transaction 406, and a seller-supplied rating of the transaction 407.] in view of Col. 1, lines 60-65[an individual vendor's reputation is often expressed in terms of, for example, a star rating (e.g., from one to five stars)]); and present the credibility of the seller and a link to the seller to a second user (Col. 8, lines 4-10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224. Seller listing 220 may also include a hyperlink 225 for selecting one of the listed sellers to complete the transaction.]). Although Huang discloses analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item, Huang does not explicitly disclose an item tokenized by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) used by a user in a metaverse space based on a trade history of the NFTs . However, Rice et al., hereinafter, Rice, teaches items tokenized by NFTs and a user in a metaverse (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 2 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: assign an incentive to the first user in a case where the second user purchases the item (Figs. 2C and 3B; Col. 8, line 4 to Col. 9, line 10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224… An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace. As shown in FIG. 4, the transaction data 400 may include information relating to, e.g., a buyer ID 401, a seller ID 402, a transaction date 403, a transaction value 404, an On-Time Delivery (OTD) indicator 405, a buyer-supplied rating of the transaction 406, and a seller-supplied rating of the transaction 407.]; Examiner notes that the “Seller Trust Rating” is comparable to an “incentive”). Regarding Claim 3 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the credibility of the seller such that the credibility becomes higher as the number of users who have purchased from the seller becomes larger (Fig. 3B; Col. 8, line 64 to Col. 9, line 5[the system may determine a seller trust rating (STR) for each of the sellers in the seller listing 220 (FIG. 2C). An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace] in view of Col. 9, line 56 to Col. 10, line 20[In step 340, the transaction data is used to construct a first bipartite graph between the buyers and sellers. An exemplary bipartite graph is shown in FIG. 5A… As another example, the edges may be weighted according to a frequency of past transactions between a respective buyer and seller (Step 350b). For example, the edges may be weighted according to the number of transactions, e.g., per month, per fiscal quarter, per year, etc.] and Col. 11, lines 25-31[In Step 360, a weighted HITS algorithm is performed on the aggregated bipartite graph (FIG. 5D) to determine a seller trust rating for each seller in the seller listing.]). Although Huang discloses calculating the credibility of the seller, Huang does not explicitly disclose purchasing the NFTs . However, Rice teaches items tokenized by NFTs and a user in a metaverse (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 4 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the credibility of the seller such that the credibility becomes higher as activity levels of users who have purchased from the seller become higher (Fig. 3B; Col. 8, line 64 to Col. 9, line 5[the system may determine a seller trust rating (STR) for each of the sellers in the seller listing 220 (FIG. 2C). An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace] in view of Col. 9, line 56 to Col. 10, line 20[In step 340, the transaction data is used to construct a first bipartite graph between the buyers and sellers. An exemplary bipartite graph is shown in FIG. 5A… As another example, the edges may be weighted according to a frequency of past transactions between a respective buyer and seller (Step 350b). For example, the edges may be weighted according to the number of transactions, e.g., per month, per fiscal quarter, per year, etc.] and Col. 11, lines 25-31[In Step 360, a weighted HITS algorithm is performed on the aggregated bipartite graph (FIG. 5D) to determine a seller trust rating for each seller in the seller listing.]). Although Huang discloses calculating the credibility of the seller, Huang does not explicitly disclose purchasing the NFTs . However, Rice teaches items tokenized by NFTs and a user in a metaverse (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 6 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not to present the credibility and the link on the basis of motion of the second user (Col. 7, lines 23-31[A user device may then select a product from the SRP, e.g., by clicking or tapping a user interface (e.g., using a mouse, pen, touchscreen, or other pointing device) or using another input device (e.g., a button or keyboard) to select a product represented on the SRP. In response to such an input, the user device may formulate a request for further information on the selected product and send it to external front-end system 103] in view of Col. 8, lines 4-10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224. Seller listing 220 may also include a hyperlink 225 for selecting one of the listed sellers to complete the transaction.]; Examiner notes that selecting a product by “tapping” or “clicking” is comparable to a motion of a user). Regarding Claim 7 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: provide an indication that the item to the second user in a case where the second user has visually recognized the item, and determine to present the credibility and the link in a case where the second user has performed a selecting operation (Col. 7, lines 23-31[A user device may then select a product from the SRP, e.g., by clicking or tapping a user interface (e.g., using a mouse, pen, touchscreen, or other pointing device) or using another input device (e.g., a button or keyboard) to select a product represented on the SRP. In response to such an input, the user device may formulate a request for further information on the selected product and send it to external front-end system 103] in view of Col. 8, lines 4-10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224. Seller listing 220 may also include a hyperlink 225 for selecting one of the listed sellers to complete the transaction]). . Although Huang discloses providing an indication that an item has been recognized and selected, Huang does not explicitly disclose an item that has been tokenized by the NFTs . However, Rice teaches items tokenized by NFTs (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 8 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the item (Col. 4, line 63 to Col. 5, line 2[For example, in embodiments where network 101 enables the presentation of systems to enable users to place an order for an item, internal front-end system 105 may be implemented as a web server that enables internal users to view diagnostic and statistical information about orders, modify item information, or review statistics relating to orders.]). Although Huang discloses an item to purchase, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the item is an avatar used inside a game . However, Rice teaches an avatar inside a game (Fig. 8; ¶0083[In a non-limiting example, a user creates a 3D object in a game and link it to a physical pair of sneakers. Ownership (or redeem/exchange, etc.) of the physical sneakers can be acquired by gaining possession of the 3D object (and vice versa). In this case, the 3D object is associated with, linked to, representative of, the physical speakers. Alternatively, the user may create a token (i.e. NFT) of the physical asset (sneaker), which may point to or include one or more images of the sneaker, but is also represented with a digital asset (such as a 2D image or 3D object). The 2D image may be viewed as an image or thumbnail on a website (such as in a marketplace) or in a crypto wallet, or in a game or virtual world inventory (such as in a player inventory in a game or website). Similarly, the physical asset and the digital token can be represented by a 3D object (such as a 3D pair of sneakers on an avatar in a virtual world space or a 3D coffee cup in augmented reality)]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 9 , Huang discloses a presenting method comprising: analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item used by a first user in a space on the basis of a trade history sold by the seller (Figs. 2C and 3B; Col. 8, line 4 to Col. 9, line 10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224… An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace. As shown in FIG. 4, the transaction data 400 may include information relating to, e.g., a buyer ID 401, a seller ID 402, a transaction date 403, a transaction value 404, an On-Time Delivery (OTD) indicator 405, a buyer-supplied rating of the transaction 406, and a seller-supplied rating of the transaction 407.]); and presenting the credibility of the seller and a link to the seller to a second user (Col. 8, lines 4-10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224. Seller listing 220 may also include a hyperlink 225 for selecting one of the listed sellers to complete the transaction.]). Although Huang discloses analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item, Huang does not explicitly disclose an item tokenized by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) used by a user in a metaverse space based on a trade history of the NFTs . However, Rice teaches items tokenized by NFTs and a user in a metaverse (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The method of Rice is applicable to the method of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003). Regarding Claim 10 , Huang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute processing of (Claim 19[A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that comprises instructions for arranging hyperlinks on a graphical user-interface (GUI) of a computerized system, which instructions, when executed by a processor, become operational to perform a method]): analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item used by a first user in a space on the basis of a trade history sold by the seller (Figs. 2C and 3B; Col. 8, line 4 to Col. 9, line 10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224… An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace. As shown in FIG. 4, the transaction data 400 may include information relating to, e.g., a buyer ID 401, a seller ID 402, a transaction date 403, a transaction value 404, an On-Time Delivery (OTD) indicator 405, a buyer-supplied rating of the transaction 406, and a seller-supplied rating of the transaction 407.]); and presenting the credibility of the seller and a link to the seller to a second user (Col. 8, lines 4-10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224. Seller listing 220 may also include a hyperlink 225 for selecting one of the listed sellers to complete the transaction.]). Although Huang discloses analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item, Huang does not explicitly disclose an item tokenized by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) used by a user in a metaverse space based on a trade history of the NFTs . However, Rice teaches items tokenized by NFTs and a user in a metaverse (¶0071[the virtual goods object can be tokenized and considered a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) which may then be stored within a blockchain] in view of ¶¶0104-0113[A token may be modified, updated, or appended with new information upon a transaction, trade, redemption, exchange… The server 202 includes an augmented reality (AR) manager 208 configured to implement functionality for providing an AR environment for users of computing device, such as computing device 102.]). The system of Rice is applicable to the system of Huang as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as disclosed by Huang to include items tokenized by NFTs and a metaverse space as taught by Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in order to trade or transfer between merchants or sellers and buyers (¶0003) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Rice in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0351484 A1) . Regarding Claim 5 , Huang in view of Rice teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze the credibility using a trade history (Figs. 2C and 3B; Col. 8, line 4 to Col. 9, line 10[As shown in FIG. 2C, the seller listing 220 may show, e.g., the commodity price 221, promised delivery date (PDD) 222, seller trust rating (STR) 223, and identity of the seller 224… An exemplary method of determining a seller trust rating is described below with respect to FIG. 3B. In Step 330 (FIG. 3B), the system may receive data 400 relating to past transactions between buyers and sellers within the marketplace. As shown in FIG. 4, the transaction data 400 may include information relating to, e.g., a buyer ID 401, a seller ID 402, a transaction date 403, a transaction value 404, an On-Time Delivery (OTD) indicator 405, a buyer-supplied rating of the transaction 406, and a seller-supplied rating of the transaction 407.] in view of Col. 1, lines 60-65[an individual vendor's reputation is often expressed in terms of, for example, a star rating (e.g., from one to five stars)]). Although Huang discloses analyzing credibility of a seller, Huang in view of Rice does not explicitly teach using an artificial intelligence (AI) that has learned a history of the NFTs . However, Lee et al., hereinafter, Lee, teaches an AI model that has learned a history of NFTs (Fig. 6; ¶0112[detection may employ a machine learning model trained to detect associations between NFT attributes and product records. The machine learning model may be trained on a set of training data across multiple merchants having disparate sets of product records and multiple NFT collections to generate a single machine learning model applicable to many NFT collections and merchants]). The system of Lee is applicable to the system of Huang in view of Rice as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to trading items online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing a credibility of a seller of an item as taught by Huang in view of Rice to include using an AI model that has learned a history of NFTs as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Huang in view of Rice in order to provide the user device with access to the one or more product records (¶0032) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Varadarajan (US 2014/0297442 A1) discloses facilitating expedited registration of sellers in an electronic marketplace. “Dynamic credibility calculation to improve e-commerce reliability” discloses a buyers' feedback based credibility management system in e-commence, for buyer to get store's dynamic creditability according to buyer's input and the input time. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET. 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. 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/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. /AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689 /ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 2 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 3 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 4 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 5 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 6 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 7 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 8 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 9 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 10 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 11 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 12 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 13 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 14 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 15 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 16 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 17 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 18 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/064,885 Page 19 Art Unit: 3689
Prosecution Insights