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 Objections
Claims 22 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22 and 39 recite “… from a wallet address posing the first token”. These recitations should read ““… from the wallet address posing the first token”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 18-22, 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cruz (US Pub. 20250307912 A1).
Cruz discloses the following limitations:
1. A method for generating a token on a blockchain, the method comprising: causing an execution of one or more functions of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is associated with a first token of the blockchain, wherein the first token comprises data associating the first token with (para. 6- primary NFT = first token): a first data element corresponding to a first non-physical element of a physical asset (para. 10- multiple digital assets associated with the physical building), a first visualization corresponding to the first data element (Fig. 4, para. 67); a second data element corresponding to a second non-physical element of the physical asset (para. 10- multiple digital assets associated with the physical building), and a second visualization corresponding to the second data element (para. 67); wherein the execution of the one or more functions of the smart contract causes: the generation of a second token of the blockchain, the second token comprising data associating the second token with the second data element corresponding to the second non-physical element of the physical asset and the second visualization corresponding to the second data element (para. 64- level NFT = second token includes level digital assets); the generation of data detaching the association of the first token with the second data element corresponding to the second non-physical element of the physical asset and the second visualization corresponding to the second data element. (para. 21, 64, 67)
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first token includes at least one metadata field comprising a URI (uniform resource indicator) referencing the first data element corresponding to the first non-physical element of the physical asset. (para. 62)
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first token includes at least one metadata field comprising a URI (uniform resource indicator) referencing the first visualization corresponding to the first data element. (para. 62, 80)
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the generated data detaching the association of the first token with the second data element and the second visualization is added to a block of the blockchain. (para. 8, 22, 85)
5. The method of claim 1, comprising causing the second token to be transferred to a wallet address of the blockchain different from the wallet address possessing the first token. (para. 53, 64)
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 6-7, 23-24, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz and further in view of Durairaj et al. (US Pat. 12619976 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Cruz discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising controlling access to one or more data elements associated with a token on a blockchain (para. 19), which comprising: receiving a request to access data representing a non-physical element of a physical asset (para. 36, 51, 77); identifying, on the blockchain, a token comprising an association with the data representing the non-physical element of the physical asset (para. 51); and granting access to the data representing the non-physical element of the physical asset (para. 51).
Cruz does not specifically teach identifying a public cryptographic key of an entity that made the request; using the public cryptographic key to verify that the entity that made the request possesses the token. However, in the related art of storing NFTs on a blockchain, Durairaj teaches identifying a public cryptographic key of an entity that made the request; using the public cryptographic key to verify that the entity that made the request possesses the token. (see col. 3, lines 42-55, col. 7, line 60- col. 8, line 17). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Durairaj with the disclosure of Cruz a well-known way to provide authentication for accessing NFTs.
Regarding claim 7, Durairaj discloses in the method of claim 6, wherein using the public cryptographic key to verify that the entity that made the request possesses the token comprises: identifying a wallet address that possesses the token, and using the public cryptographic key to verify a digital signature associated with the wallet address. (col. 13, lines 31-60)
Regarding claims 18-24, they merely recite a computer program that when executed, performs the functional steps of method claims 1-7, and thus, rejected for the same rationale. (see para. 18, 89)
Regarding claims 35-40, they are rejected as applied to claims 1-6 because a corresponding system would have been necessitated to carry forth the method steps of claims 1-6. The applied prior art also discloses the corresponding architecture. (see Fig. 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
WILLIAM A. CORUM JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2433
william.corum2@uspto.gov
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights