DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed April 8, 2026. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5 and 12-16) in the reply filed on April 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The claim recites “a interface” instead of “an interface” at line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-5 are method claims. Claims 12-16 are directed to a blockchain node comprising at least one processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of storing non-fungible token resource. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to storing non-fungible token resource. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
1. A method for processing resources by a blockchain node in a blockchain, comprising:
receiving a transaction, wherein the transaction invokes a contract to invoke a interface provided by a blockchain platform;
execute the interface based on the transaction;
determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract; and
storing a first non-fungible token (NFT) resource in the contract state in association with the first storage key if the resource corresponding to the first storage key is not stored in the contract state of the contract.
Independent claim 12 recites similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the interface, blockchain, and NFT are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of storing non-fungible token resource. Viewed as a whole, the use of interface, blockchain, and NFT as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the interface, blockchain, and NFT to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of storing non-fungible token resource. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of storing non-fungible token resource. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract comprises: determining whether the first resource type is consistent with the second resource type; and determining whether a resource corresponding to a first resource object is stored in the contract state of the contract when the first resource type is consistent with the second resource type.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1, 2, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/002974 A1 to Kempf et al. (“Kempf”) in view of JP-2023050788-A to Sasaki et al. (“Sasaki”)
As per claim 1, Kempf discloses receiving a transaction, wherein the transaction invokes a contract to invoke a interface provided by a blockchain platform (paragraphs [0006]- receiving, at a first server of the data center, a call to a function to be performed for a smart contract of a blockchain database…call for the function to a first runtime environment of the first server; fetching code from the blockchain database, where the code includes a set of one or more instructions to be executed for implementing the function; paragraph [0038]) and
execute the interface based on the transaction (paragraph [0006] -executing the code in the first runtime environment resulting in a blockchain transaction and a modified state of the blockchain database).
Kempf does not expressly disclose determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract;
and storing a first non-fungible token (NFT) resource in the contract state in association with the first storage key if the resource corresponding to the first storage key is not stored in the contract state of the contract.
Saski discloses determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract (description of embodiments – makes NFT request; second embodiment – method or programmably changing NFT by rewriting the storage state – this will check the keys in order to rewrite the state );
and storing a first non-fungible token (NFT) resource in the contract state in association with the first storage key if the resource corresponding to the first storage key is not stored in the contract state of the contract (description of embodiments – In Example 1… When the client X 500 logs in to the NFT management system…the data server 206 mints the NFT and writes the URI to the Storage State…when the Value of “Key1” is “tokenURI_A” it is set to “ACL A(token mintable Owner)”, and when the Value of “Key2” is “tokenURI_B”).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the elements of Saski into the system of Kempf as they relate smart contracts and blockchain storage. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Kempf in combination with Saski disclose wherein the interface comprises a creation interface configured to create an NFT resource, wherein input parameters to the creation interface comprise a first identifier of a first mapping relationship, a first account, and a contract address of the contract, and wherein the method further comprises: determining the first storage key based on the first identifier, the first account, and the contract address of the contract (see claim 1 above; Saski at Fig. 2- NFT contract address, token ID; Kempf at [0025] and [0029] - accounts).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1 and 2.
Claim 3-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf and Saski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0264996 to Soon-Shing et al. (“Soon-Shing”).
As per claim 3, Kempf in combination with Saski disclose using the blockchain for transfer is an interface used for transferring NFT resources. The references also teach determining the first storage key based on the first identifier, the first account, and the contract address of the contract; determining a second storage key based on the second identifier, the second account, and the contract address of the contract; and reading the first NFT resource from the contract state based on the second storage key (see claim 1).
Kempf in combination with Saski do not expressly disclose the interface is a transfer interface.
Soon-Shiong discloses the interface comprises a transfer interface configured to transfer an NFT resource, wherein input parameters to the transfer interface comprise a first identifier of a first mapping relationship, a first account, a second identifier of a second mapping relationship, a second account, and a contract address of the contract, and the method further comprises: determining the first storage key based on the first identifier, the first account, and the contract address of the contract; determining a second storage key based on the second identifier, the second account, and the contract address of the contract; and reading the first NFT resource from the contract state based on the second storage key (paragraphs [0091] and [0097]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the elements of Saski and Soon-Shiong into the system of Kempf and Saksi as provides means to transfer NFT. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Kempf in combination with Saski and Soon-Shiong disclose wherein the input parameters further comprise a first resource type corresponding to the first storage key and a second resource type corresponding to the second storage key, and the determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract comprises: determining whether the first resource type is consistent with the second resource type; and determining whether a resource corresponding to a first resource object is stored in the contract state of the contract when the first resource type is consistent with the second resource type (see claim 1; NFT resource; Soon-Shiong at paragrpahs [0095] and [0098]).
As per claim 5, Kempf in combination with Saski discloses the determining whether a resource corresponding to a first storage key is stored in a contract state of the contract comprises: determining the first storage key based on the first identifier, the first account, the contract address of the contract, and the first resource type; and determining whether the resource corresponding to the first storage key is stored in the contract state (see claim 1 and claim 4).
Claims 12-16 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2026/0037960 to Witchey et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights