Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/228,336

PROOF OF PRESENCE USING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Priority
Nov 18, 2022 — continuation of 12/355,887
Examiner
PLECHA, THADDEUS J
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
556 granted / 638 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
654
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 638 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on June 4, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below. Specification For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on June 4, 2025 has been accepted. Drawings For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on June 4, 2025 have been accepted. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,887. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of claims 1-20 are disclosed by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,887. Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “generating, by the non-fungible token generation circuitry, the travel non-fungible token, wherein the travel non-fungible token comprises information pertaining to the verification non-fungible token and one or more other verification non-fungible tokens that occurred within a particular time window, and providing, by the communications hardware, the verification non-fungible token and the travel non-fungible token in an associated distributed ledger”. The closest prior art made of record are: Sabintsev (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0374902) which discloses generating an NFT for a user in response to authentication (paragraph [0053]) Berry et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0106649) which discloses receiving a request for generating an NFT where the request contains credential information (paragraphs [0049], [0075], [0076] and [0081]-[0083]) While the prior art generally discloses NFT generation based on authentication for proof of presence, the prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Independent claims 11 and 20 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art for similar reasons to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30. 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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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. /THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683977
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING SECURITY REQUIREMENTS IN A ZTNA SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12682034
MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION USING TAMPER-RESISTANT BAND AND BIOMETRIC DATA
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675566
SECURE VIRTUALIZED PERFORMANCE MONITORING COUNTERS
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676763
SYSTEMS AND METHODS USING PHYSICALLY UNCLONABLE FUNCTIONS WITHOUT A CHALLENGE-RESPONSE DATABASE
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676738
METHOD FOR THRESHOLD SECRET SHARING AND RECONSTRUCTION FOR MULTI-COMPARTMENT
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 638 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month