DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's communications received on November 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation of US patent application number 18/152,978
filed January 11, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,505,429. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on November 26, 2025 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2025 is in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Scope:
Claims 2 and 3 recite limitations pertaining to, and/or performed by, “the device” (i.e., “wherein the device is configured to store the NFT identifier and a private key corresponding to the public key as provisioning data” and “wherein the device is configured to store the provisioning data in a secure area of memory”). Examiner notes that these limitations are outside the scope of the claimed invention. That is, claim 1 is directed to a computing system comprising a communications module, a processor and a memory. Since the claimed invention (i.e., the claimed computing system) does not comprise “the device”, and because these limitations do not further limit the claimed computing system, these limitations will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Prior art has been provided for these limitations, however the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Similarly, claim 9 recites a limitation pertaining to, and/or performed by, a “point-of-sale terminal” (i.e., “wherein the point-of-sale terminal is configured to generate a personal identification number (PIN) block for a transaction message based on the NFT identifier”). Since the claimed invention does not comprise the “point-of-sale terminal”, and because this limitation does not further limit the claimed computing system, this limitation will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferenczi (US 2025/0156862 A1) in view of Khan et al. (US 2025/0023738 A1) (hereinafter “Khan”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13: Ferenczi discloses:
Claim 1: A computing system (i.e., issuer computing environment) comprising:
a communications module (See at least Ferenczi [0014]; [0016] “a network interface”.);
a processor coupled with the communications module (See at least Ferenczi [0016] “a processor”.); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to provision for non-fungible token (NFT) authentication by (See at least Ferenczi [0016] “a memory”; [0018-0019] “data store”; [0081-0087]):
Claim 13: A method for provisioning for non-fungible token (NFT) authentication, the method comprising:
receiving a public key (See at least Ferenczi [0036]; [0042]; [0057]; [0070]. Ferenczi discloses receiving a public key (i.e., NFT owner public key, e.g., the NFT owner public key of the second user).);
creating an NFT having an NFT identifier and assigning ownership of the NFT to an address identified from the public key (See at least Ferenczi [0041-0042]; [0057]. Ferenczi discloses creating an NFT having an NFT identifier (i.e., NFT identifier) and assigning ownership of the NFT to an address identified from the public key (i.e., assigned to the NFT owner public key, e.g., assigned to the NFT owner public key of the second user).); and
storing provisioning data including at least the NFT identifier, the public key and the unique identifier to enable NFT-based authentication (See at least Ferenczi [0031-0032]; [0039]; [0040-0041]; [0054]; [0071-0072]. Ferenczi discloses storing provisioning data (e.g., where data is stored at the issuer service, in the NFT, and/or in the distributed data store) including at least the NFT identifier (i.e., the NFT identifier), the public key (i.e., the NFT owner key) and the unique identifier (i.e., the payment information) to enable NFT-based authentication.).
Ferenczi discloses receiving a public key (i.e., NFT owner public key, e.g., the NFT owner public key of the second user) from a first user. Ferenczi [0036]; [0042]; [0057]; [0070]. Ferenczi further discloses that the issuer service could generate payment information (i.e., a unique identifier, e.g., an account number for use in making payments, an expiration date, a card security code (CSC), a card verification value (CVV), a card validation code (CVC), a card identification number (CID), etc.) and save it as part of the record for the new stored value payment instrument. Ferenczi [0022]; [0039]. Although Ferenczi discloses receiving a public key and generating payment information (i.e., a unique identifier), Ferenczi differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Ferenczi does not explicitly disclose receiving, from a device, a public key and a unique identifier.
Khan, on the other hand, teaches receiving, from a device, a public key and a unique identifier (See at least Khan [0025-0026]; [0059]; Fig. 4 step 402. Khan teaches receiving, from a device (i.e., computing device), a public key (i.e., public key) and a unique identifier (i.e., a transaction account identifier).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Khan into Ferenczi’s method of receiving a public key and generating payment information (i.e., a unique identifier). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to combine an NFT with a digital payment instrument (Khan [0005]). Additionally, receiving the unique identifier from the device, rather than issuer, would allow a user of the device to associate/combine an NFT with an existing unique identifier (i.e., with previously generated payment information) in order to create a customized digitized version of their card (Khan [0018-0019]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13. Ferenczi further discloses wherein configuring the computing system to provision for non-fungible token (NFT) authentication further includes:
sending the NFT identifier to the device (See at least Ferenczi [0058]. Ferenczi discloses sending the NFT identifier to the device (i.e., to the second user’s device/client device 106b).),
wherein the device is configured to store the NFT identifier and a private key corresponding to the public key as provisioning data (See at least Ferenczi [0028]; [0046]; [0058]; Fig. 1 item 146. Ferenczi discloses wherein the device (i.e., the second user’s device/client device 106b) is configured to store the NFT identifier (e.g., store a message comprising the NFT identifier) and a private key (i.e., NFT owner private key) corresponding to the public key (i.e., corresponding to the NFT owner public key) as provisioning data.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 2 and the method of claim 14. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the device is configured to store the provisioning data in a secure area of memory (See at least Ferenczi [0028]; [0046]; [0058]; Fig. 1 item 146. Ferenczi discloses wherein the device (i.e., the second user’s device/client device 106b) is configured to store the provisioning data in a secure area of memory (e.g., a wallet, a message inbox of the client device 106b).).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 3 and the method of claim 15. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computing system to, after storing the provisioning data, using the provisioning data to authenticate a request (See at least Ferenczi [0045-0046]; [0059-0060]; [0074-0076]; Fig. 6. Ferenczi discloses, after storing the provisioning data (i.e., after storing the data, e.g., NFT identifier, NFT owner key, payment information), using the provisioning data (e.g., NFT identifier, NFT owner key) to authenticate a request (i.e., a request to redeem the stored value payment instrument).).
Claims 5-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferenczi in view of Khan, as applied above, and further in view of Shulman (US 2023/0289410 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 4 and the method of claim 16. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the request includes an identifier (See at least Ferenczi [0033]; [0045-0046]; [0059-0060]; [0064]. Ferenczi discloses wherein the request (i.e., the request to redeem the stored value payment instrument) includes an identifier (i.e., a redemption URL).) and wherein the authenticating of the request is performed by:
retrieving the NFT identifier and public key associated with the identifier included in the request (See at least Ferenczi [0064-0066]. Ferenczi discloses retrieving the NFT identifier and public key (i.e., NFT owner public key) associated with the identifier included in the request (i.e., associated with the redemption URL in the redemption request).); and
verifying that a private key stored in a secure area of the device is associated with the public key that is associated with the identifier included in the request (See at least Ferenczi [0029-0030]; [0046]; [0060]; [0075-0076]. Ferenczi discloses verifying that a private key (i.e., NFT owner private key) stored in a secure area of the device (e.g., in a wallet of the of the client device) is associated with the public key (i.e., is associated with the NFT owner public key) that is associated with the identifier (i.e., associated with the redemption URL) included in the request.).
Ferenczi discloses authenticating/validating a request via a linked NFT prior to allowing a user to redeem a stored value payment instrument. See e.g., Ferenczi [0045-0046]; [0059-0060]; [0064]. However, Ferenczi does not explicitly disclose identifying, from a blockchain, a blockchain address that is an owner of an NFT represented by the retrieved NFT identifier or verifying that the blockchain address that is the owner of the NFT is associated with the public key that is associated with the identifier included in the request.
Shulman, on the other hand, further teaches:
identifying, from a blockchain, a blockchain address that is an owner of an NFT represented by the retrieved NFT identifier (See at least Shulman [0045]; [0049]. Shulman teaches identifying, from a blockchain, a blockchain address (i.e., public wallet identifier) that is an owner of an NFT represented by the retrieved NFT identifier (i.e., by the NFT identifier).); and
verifying that the blockchain address that is the owner of the NFT is associated with the public key that is associated with the identifier included in the request (See at least Shulman [0045]; [0047]. Shulman teaches verifying (e.g., by decrypting a response) that the blockchain address (i.e., public wallet identifier) that is the owner of the NFT is associated with the public key (i.e., public key of the NFT) that is associated with the identifier included in the request.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shulman into Ferenczi’s method of authenticating/validating a request via a linked NFT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to verify ownership of an NFT (Shulman [0047]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18: The combination of Ferenczi, Khan and Shulman discloses the computing system of claim 5 and the method of claim 17. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computing system to: after authenticating the authentication request, enable an operation not available prior to authenticating the authentication request (See at least Ferenczi [0048]; [0062]. Ferenczi discloses, after authenticating the authentication request, enable an operation not available prior to authenticating the authentication request (e.g., enable access to the payment information, enable use of the payment instrument, enable saving the payment information to a digital wallet, etc.).).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19: The combination of Ferenczi, Khan and Shulman discloses the computing system of claim 6 and the method of claim 18. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the unique identifier is a primary account number for a payment credential and wherein enabling the operation includes enabling completion of a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal using the payment credential (See at least Ferenczi [0020] “stored value payment instrument 123 can represent any payment instrument with a preset or predefined monetary value associated with the payment instrument itself, which the user could use to pay a merchant in exchange for goods or services”; [0022] “payment information 126 can represent information that would allow the stored value payment instrument 123 to be used in a transaction. For example, if the stored value payment instrument 123 were an open loop gift card, open loop payment card, or prepaid debit card, this could include information such as an account number for use in making payments”; [0028]; [0048]; [0062]. Ferenczi discloses wherein the unique identifier (i.e., the payment information) is a primary account number for a payment credential (i.e., an account number for a payment instrument) and wherein enabling the operation includes enabling completion of a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal using the payment credential (e.g., by enabling access to the payment information and/or by enabling use of the payment instrument).).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20: The combination of Ferenczi, Khan and Shulman discloses the computing system of claim 7 and the method of claim 19. Ferenczi further discloses wherein enabling the completion of the transaction includes setting an authentication flag associated with the NFT identifier to indicate that the authentication request has been authenticated (See at least Ferenczi [0047]; [0061]. Ferenczi discloses wherein enabling the completion of the transaction includes setting an authentication flag (i.e., marking the NFT) associated with the NFT identifier to indicate that the authentication request has been authenticated (i.e., authenticated/validated, which is indicated by the payment instrument being redeemed).).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferenczi in view of Khan in view of Shulman, as applied above, and further in view of Ravinathan et al. (US 2024/0104560 A1) (hereinafter “Ravinathan”).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Ferenczi, Khan and Shulman discloses the computing system of claim 7. Ferenczi further discloses providing an NFT identifier in order to redeem a stored value payment instrument. Ferenczi [0045]. However, the combination of Ferenczi, Khan and Shulman does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing system to send the NFT identifier to the point-of-sale terminal
Ravinathan, on the other hand, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing system to send the NFT identifier to the point-of-sale terminal (See at least Ravinathan [0104]; Fig. 16. Ravinathan teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing system to send the NFT identifier (i.e., token ID) to the point-of-sale terminal (i.e., to the merchant application).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ravinathan into Ferenczi’s method of using an NFT identifier in order to redeem a stored value payment instrument. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow the user to checkout via a merchant application using a financial NFT (Ravinathan [0104]).
The combination of Ferenczi, Khan, Shulman and Ravinathan does not explicitly disclose wherein the point-of-sale terminal is configured to generate a personal identification number (PIN) block for a transaction message based on the NFT identifier. However, generating a personal identification number (PIN) block for a transaction message based on the NFT identifier is merely an intended use, and/or intended result, of why the NFT identifier was sent to the point-of-sale terminal. Additionally, the claimed “computing system” does not comprise the point-of-sale terminal, accordingly any steps/actions performed by the POS terminal are currently outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes that claim 9 would be allowable over the prior art if: applicant included the point-of-sale terminal in the claimed system; positively recited the step of generating, by the point-of-sale terminal, a personal identification number (PIN) block for a transaction message based on the NFT identifier; and claim 9 was rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim (i.e., claim 1) and the intervening claims (i.e., claims 2-7).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferenczi in view of Khan, as applied above, and further in view of Rubin et al. (US 2026/0004293 A1) (hereinafter “Rubin”).
Regarding Claim 11: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 1. Ferenczi further discloses wherein the unique identifier is associated with a payment card that is issued digitally (See at least Ferenczi [0020-0022]; [0028] “The digital wallet 142 could be used to store transaction account information, such as the payment information 126 of a stored value payment instrument”; [0048] “Once displayed, the second user could save the payment information (e.g., to the digital wallet 142) for use in future transactions”. Ferenczi discloses wherein the unique identifier (i.e., the payment information) is associated with a payment card (i.e., a payment instrument) that is issued digitally.).
Ferenczi does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to provision for NFT authentication after the device has received a digital representation of the payment card.
Rubin, on the other hand, teaches wherein the processor is configured to provision for NFT authentication after the device has received a digital representation of the payment card (See at least Rubin [0079-0081]; [0084-0087]; [0092-0093]. Rubin teaches wherein the processor is configured to provision for NFT authentication (i.e., by storing and/or linking an NFT asset with the unique identifier (e.g., a personal account number, user account information)) after the device has received a digital representation of the payment card (i.e., after the computing device has received a virtual representation of a payment credential. Note that [0085] describes the payment credential as an existing payment credential.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rubin into Ferenczi’s method of using an NFT for authentication purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to enhance a transaction via an NFT hosted on a blockchain (Rubin [0067]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferenczi in view of Khan, as applied above, and further in view of Ferenczi (US 2023/0379160 A1) (hereinafter “Ferenczi ‘9160”).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Ferenczi and Khan discloses the computing system of claim 1. As indicated above, Ferenczi also discloses that the issuer service could generate payment information (i.e., a unique identifier, e.g., an account number for use in making payments, an expiration date, a card security code (CSC), a card verification value (CVV), a card validation code (CVC), a card identification number (CID), etc.) and save it as part of the record for the new stored value payment instrument. Ferenczi [0022]; [0039]. Although Ferenczi discloses generating payment information (i.e., a unique identifier), Ferenczi differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Ferenczi does not explicitly disclose wherein the unique identifier is obtained via image recognition of an image captured of a physical token, and wherein the image recognition includes optical character recognition.
Ferenczi ‘9160, who is also concerned with using an NFT for authentication purposes, teaches wherein the unique identifier is obtained via image recognition of an image captured of a physical token, and wherein the image recognition includes optical character recognition (See at least Ferenczi ‘9160 [0026]; [0051-0052]; [0079-0080]. Ferenczi ‘9160 teaches wherein the unique identifier (i.e., information from the credential data) is obtained via image recognition (i.e., image recognition techniques, e.g., optical character recognition (OCR)) of an image captured of a physical token (i.e., an image of a credential, e.g., government issued identification, passport, driver's license, etc.), and wherein the image recognition includes optical character recognition.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ferenczi ‘9160 into Ferenczi’s method of generating payment information (i.e., a unique identifier). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to extract information from a user’s credential for analysis to determine authenticity for user verification (Ferenczi ‘9160 [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that the prior art, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest “wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to determine that an authentication flag associated with an NFT identifier represented by a PIN block for a received transaction message is set to indicate that an authentication request has been authenticated,” as recited in dependent claim 10. Moreover, the missing claim elements, noted above, are not found in a reasonable number of references. Accordingly, even if the missing claim elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have been motivated to include these missing elements in the disclosure of the primary reference Ferenczi (US 2025/0156862 A1) because it would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Accordingly, claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (i.e., claim 1) and any intervening claims (i.e., claims 2-7 and 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Jurat et al. (US 2024/0070305 A1) discloses generating dynamic NFTs for authenticating one or more users. Jurat [0005]. An authentication platform stores the dynamic NFTs on a transaction block of a distributed blockchain. Jurat [0057]. The authentication platform also generates, via a digital wallet, a private key that is associated with an NFT. Id.
Haddad et al. (US 2023/0186291 A1) discloses where a user attempts to log into a website or application. In response, the user is prompted to transfer an NFT to a smart contract located on a distributed ledger/blockchain. It is determined whether the NFT is assigned to the user and, if so, the user is authenticated and the NFT is returned to the user. Haddad [0116-0118].
Shankar et al. (WO 2024/011057 A1) discloses network token systems that provide a platform that can be leveraged by various entities such as third party wallet providers, merchants, acquirers, payment processors, etc. that use tokens to facilitate payment transactions. The network token systems may be adapted and configured to enable an NFT owner to prove ownership and legitimacy of their NFT anywhere using a token. Shankar [0022].
Wang et al. (US 2021/0152357 A1) discloses a method and system for identity verification. During operation, a digital identity client executing on a computer receives an identity-verification request comprising an identifier of a user, sends a query for available identity-verification services to identity-verification-service-publishing blockchain, determines an identity verification server based on a result of the query, interacts with the determined identity-verification server to complete identity verification of the user, generates a public-private key pair comprising a public key and a private key corresponding to the identifier of the user, and stores, in identity verification blockchain, identity-verification information associated with the user. The identity-verification information comprises at least a hash value of the public key, thereby facilitating subsequent identity verification of the user based on the identity-verification information stored in the identity-verification blockchain. Wang [0005].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights