DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is in reply to the responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/22/2025.
3. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Related Application(s) – Prior Art of Record
4. The instant application is a continuation application (CON) of parent application 17/744,698 (now USPN 12,340,420), which is itself a CIP of application 17/083,906 (now ABN), which is itself a CON of application 15/997,898 (now USPN 10,861,102). In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the prior art cited in the above parent application has been considered, and all documents cited or considered ‘of record' in that application are now considered cited or ‘of record' in this application. The prosecution history of the above parent application is relevant in the examination of the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/22/2025 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Double Patenting
6. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-18 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of Patent No. 12,340,420.
Although claims 1-18 of the instant application and claims 1-6 of Patent No. 12,340,420 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-6 of Patent No. 12,340,420.
Claims 1-18 of the instant application and claims 1-6 of Patent No. 12,340,420 recite a computer-implemented method of using a computing system and a computing device of a computing system of asset reconfiguration and reassignment within a communication system.
For independent claims 1, 7, and 13 of the instant application: Independent claims 1 and 4 of Patent No. 12,340,420 is a narrower version of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 of the instant application with additional allowed claim limitations of “the current obligation provider identifier is the same as the original obligation provider identifier when the NFT was initially generated, and the current outcome recipient identifier is the same as an original outcome recipient identifier when the NFT was initially generated.” Therefore, claims 1 and 4 of Patent No. 12,340,420, is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 7, and 13. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For dependent claim 4 of the instant application: Dependent claim 2 of Patent No. 12,340,420 is the same version of dependent claim 4 of the instant application.
For dependent claim 5 of the instant application: Dependent claim 3 of Patent No. 12,340,420 is the same version of dependent claim 5 of the instant application.
For dependent claim 10 of the instant application: Dependent claim 5 of Patent No. 12,340,420 is the same version of dependent claim 10 of the instant application.
For dependent claim 11 of the instant application: Dependent claim 6 of Patent No. 12,340,420 is the same version of dependent claim 11 of the instant application.
Notes from Examiner Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Claims 1-18 are not rejected under 35 USC § 101 because whereas, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interaction for selecting a non-fungible token (NFT) of an object distributed ledger based on an evaluation of the NFT with regards to an evaluation profile, updating the selected NFT utilizing the reassignment information for the NFT and generating a new block affiliated with the updated NFT via the blockchain of the object distributed ledger), the additional element or combination of elements of “generating, by the computing device, a calculated cryptographic token value of the NFT that includes the obligation provider identifier record of the NFT and the outcome recipient identifier record of the NFT; verifying, by the computing device, that the cryptographic token value of the NFT matches the calculated cryptographic token value of the NFT; determining, by the computing device, an evaluation profile for an evaluation of the NFT to include a required evaluation performance improvement level of the obligation requirements; comparing, by the computing device, the providing of the obligation associated with the current obligation provider identifier to providing of the obligation associated with a hypothetical obligation provider identifier in accordance with the evaluation profile to produce an obligation evaluation; comparing, by the computing device, an estimated triggered outcome when the providing of the obligation is associated with the current obligation provider identifier to a hypothetical estimated triggered outcome when the providing of the obligation is associated with the hypothetical obligation provider identifier in accordance with the evaluation profile to produce an outcome evaluation; indicating, by the computing device, to select the NFT to produce a selected NFT when the obligation evaluation and the outcome evaluation satisfies the required evaluation performance improvement level of the obligation requirements; determining, by the computing device, reassignment information for the selected NFT, wherein the reassignment information includes a confirmed change of at least one of the current obligation provider identifier and the current outcome recipient identifier; updating, by the computing device, the selected NFT utilizing the reassignment information to produce an updated NFT; hashing, by the computing device, content of the updated NFT utilizing a receiving public key of the object distributed ledger to produce a next transaction hash value; encrypting, by the computing device, the next transaction hash value utilizing a private key of the computing device to produce a next transaction signature; generating, by the computing device, a next block of a blockchain of the object distributed ledger to include the content of the updated NFT and the next transaction signature; and causing, by the computing device, inclusion of the next block as a new block in the object distributed ledger” integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of updating a token to memorialize updated obligation records that are selected based on a fit with a desire performance improvement where the token is immutable via security steps specific for this selection [See representative independent claims 1, 7, and 13]. Also, the same reasons of 35 USC § 101 apply to dependent claims (2-6), (8-12), and (14-18) for dependent from independent claims 1, 7, and 13 since they include the limitations of independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
10. The best prior art of record, Thukral et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0178954), hereinafter, “Thukral”, Martin (U.S. Patent No. 7,752,062), hereinafter, “Martin”, and Bent et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,626,649), hereinafter, “Bent”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application claim limitations of:
“generating, by the computing device, a calculated cryptographic token value of the NFT that includes the obligation provider identifier record of the NFT and the outcome recipient identifier record of the NFT; verifying, by the computing device, that the cryptographic token value of the NFT matches the calculated cryptographic token value of the NFT; determining, by the computing device, an evaluation profile for an evaluation of the NFT to include a required evaluation performance improvement level of the obligation requirements; comparing, by the computing device, the providing of the obligation associated with the current obligation provider identifier to providing of the obligation associated with a hypothetical obligation provider identifier in accordance with the evaluation profile to produce an obligation evaluation; comparing, by the computing device, an estimated triggered outcome when the providing of the obligation is associated with the current obligation provider identifier to a hypothetical estimated triggered outcome when the providing of the obligation is associated with the hypothetical obligation provider identifier in accordance with the evaluation profile to produce an outcome evaluation; indicating, by the computing device, to select the NFT to produce a selected NFT when the obligation evaluation and the outcome evaluation satisfies the required evaluation performance improvement level of the obligation requirements; determining, by the computing device, reassignment information for the selected NFT, wherein the reassignment information includes a confirmed change of at least one of the current obligation provider identifier and the current outcome recipient identifier; updating, by the computing device, the selected NFT utilizing the reassignment information to produce an updated NFT; hashing, by the computing device, content of the updated NFT utilizing a receiving public key of the object distributed ledger to produce a next transaction hash value; encrypting, by the computing device, the next transaction hash value utilizing a private key of the computing device to produce a next transaction signature; generating, by the computing device, a next block of a blockchain of the object distributed ledger to include the content of the updated NFT and the next transaction signature; and causing, by the computing device, inclusion of the next block as a new block in the object distributed ledger.”
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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 Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights