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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “whether the tokes are disposable” should be “whether the tokens are disposable.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the token distribution destinations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is dependent from claim 1. Neither claim 1 nor claim 7 provides an antecedent basis for “the token distribution destinations.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the token distribution destination wallets" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 3, which is dependent from claim 1. Neither claim 1, claim 3, nor claim 8 provides an antecedent basis for “the token distribution destination wallets.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the token distribution destination wallet addresses" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent from claim 8, which is dependent from claim 3, which is dependent from claim 1. Neither claim 1, claim 3, claim 8, nor claim 9 provides an antecedent basis for “the token distribution destination wallet addresses.”
Claim 10 is dependent from claim 9. It does not cure the deficiencies presented above. Therefore, it is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least based on its dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim 12 recites “The information processing device according to Claim 1, including other features shown in Figs. 14 to 23E.” While MPEP 2173.05(s) permits claims to incorporate by reference to a specific figure or table under exceptional circumstances, claim 12 has failed to provide the specific features of such figures that limit the claim. In other words, it is unclear what features of the figures listed are to be included. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, Examiner notes that incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table is only permitted under exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Based on the figures referenced, this situation is not considered an exceptional circumstance since there exists a practical way to define the invention in words. Examiner recommends the Applicant amend claim 12 to claim the specific features in words to clearly define the scope of the claim.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a program” does not have a physical or tangible form. It is considered “software per se” and the claim has been claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 and 17 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Although claim 16 does not fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter, it can be readily amended to overcome such shortcoming. Therefore, for purposes of compact prosecution, claim 16 shall also be included in the analysis.
The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 16 and 17 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to all of the independent claims. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
An information processing device that automatically generates base information for tokens that can circulate on networks related to blockchain composed of multiple computers, based on various inputs from users.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A recites a limitation that is reasonably categorized under mental processes. Specifically, generating base information for tokens based on user inputs can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
The additional element “an information processing device” has been recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a generic computing component. Therefore, when the additional element is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claim amounts to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of a “blockchain composed of multiple computers” has been generically recited such that it is generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, when the additional element is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-15 elaborate on the abstract idea identified above without reciting any new additional elements. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 3-4, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pardo U.S. 2023/0034621.
Re Claim 1, Pardo discloses an information processing device that automatically generates base information for tokens that can circulate on networks related to blockchain composed of multiple computers, based on various inputs from users ([0155] – “generating the NFT metadata for the NFT,” [0126] – NFTs circulate on the blockchain, [0153] – “plurality of the nodes 112 store a copy of the blockchain 130,” [0172] – “the client device 118 also modifies the NFT metadata 122,” [0141] – “users and their respective client device 118,” i.e. based on various inputs from users).
Re Claim 3, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, and Pardo further discloses wherein the base information includes predetermined information that third parties cannot view on the blockchain ([0118] – “the off-chain storage 102 can include off-chain NFT metadata 112,” i.e. cannot be viewed on the blockchain, [0166] – predetermined information).
Examiner notes the content of the base information is nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the base information does not meaningfully limit how it is generated. Therefore, the content of the base information cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided above.
Re Claim 4, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, and Pardo further discloses which displays the tokens linked to the base information as viewable [0146] – “retrieve the digital asset…and display on the client device 118 to the user.”
Re Claim 8, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 3, and Pardo further discloses wherein when the base information related to other tokens linked to the token distribution destination wallets includes label information as the predetermined information, multiple tokens linked to the wallets can be classified based on the predetermined information [0167] – “the metadata field for the reference to other NFT(s) can…define the set of NTFs [sic]..each NFT 120 can indicate in the reference to other NFT(s) the name or the blockchain address of at least one or all of the other NFTs 120 in the set.”
Re Claim 9, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 8, and Pardo further discloses which generates customer identification information including distribution history based on information acquirable based on the token distribution destination wallet addresses [0195] – “modifies the NFT metadata 122…to indicate ownership of the new NFT 120 or one of the other NFTs 120,” [0199] – “the wallet address of the second device 118(2) is noted on the blockchain 130 as being the owner of the NFT 120.”
Re Claim 12, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, and Pardo further discloses including other features shown in Figs. 14 to 23E [0111] – “the digital asset can include…digital images.”
Re Claim 13, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 3, and Pardo further discloses which performs on-chain community detection for the users using the predetermined information included in the base information [0168] – “the metadata field for the reference to other NFT(s) can, for example, define the set of NTFs [sic] 120…In another example, the first NFT 120 can reference to only the second NFT 120, and the second NFT 120 can only reference to the third NFT 120, and so on in a linked list or linked circle. Such an architecture links all of the NFTs 120 together.”
Re Claims 16-17, they are the program and method claims of device claim 1. They recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 5-7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardo U.S. 2023/0034621 in view of Quigley et al. U.S. 2023/0274244 (herein as “Quigley”).
Re Claim 2, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose wherein the base information includes, as an attribute of the tokens, information indicating whether the tokes are disposable.
Examiner notes the content of the base information is nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the base information does not meaningfully limit how it is generated. Therefore, the content of the base information cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
wherein the base information includes, as an attribute of the tokens, information indicating whether the tokes are disposable [0018] – “the NFT includes an attribute indicating a number of times the user can redeem the NFT,” [0966] – “some tickets may be one-time use tickets,” i.e. disposable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of the base information includes, as an attribute of the tokens, information indicating whether the tokens are disposable in Quigley. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 5, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 4, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose wherein the viewable tokens are associated with access information for issuance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure MPEP 2111.04. Claim 5 does not include any claim language that limits the claim to a particular structure. Therefore, it cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
wherein the viewable tokens are associated with access information for issuance [0018] – “the NFT includes an attribute indicating a number of times the user can redeem the NFT.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of associating tokens with access information for issuance in Quigley. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 6, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose which displays distribution situations of the tokens as viewable.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
which displays distribution situations of the tokens as viewable [0477] – “may provide a GUI that allows a user to define attributes of a new item…a quantity of items.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of displaying distribution situations of the token as viewable in Quigley. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 7, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose which displays other tokens linked to wallets of the token distribution destinations as viewable.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
which displays other tokens linked to wallets of the token distribution destinations as viewable [0485] – “browse virtual items offered on the platform.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of displaying other tokens linked to wallets of the token distribution destinations as viewable in Quigley. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 10, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 9, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose which generates advertising information based on the customer identification information.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
which generates advertising information based on the customer identification information [0156] – “presenting…the electronic in-game advertisement in the live stream within a display device of the user device.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of generating advertising information based on the customer identification information in Quigley. One would be motivated to make this combination to create targeted advertisements for users Quigley, [0316], thereby encouraging sales.
Re Claim 11, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 1, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose which displays information that can specify distribution locations and distribution events as viewable for each wallet address.
Quigley discloses trading analytics for cryptographic tokens. Specifically, Quigley discloses
which displays information that can specify distribution locations and distribution events as viewable for each wallet address [0475] – “provide information such as a physical location where physical items may be shipped from, a digital location where digital items may be retrieved from, physical locations of the seller’s brick and mortar stores, hours of operation of the seller, and the like. These attributes may be included in the virtual representation.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of displaying information that can specify distribution locations and distribution events as viewable for each wallet address in Quigley. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardo U.S. 2023/0034621 in view of Eldefrawy et al. U.S. 2023/0140247 (herein as “Eldefrawy”).
Re Claim 14, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 13, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose wherein the on-chain community detection is executed through wallet clustering using off-chain label information.
Eldefrawy discloses techniques for ranking cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency addresses. Specifically, Eldefrawy discloses
wherein the on-chain community detection is executed through wallet clustering using off-chain label information ([0063] – “cluster wallet addresses based on other meta-data and information (e.g., geolocations, IP-addresses, etc.),” i.e. off-chain label information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of wallet clustering using off-chain label information in Eldefrawy. One would be motivated to make this combination to determine a risk level associated with a given cryptocurrency address Eldefrawy [0007], thereby reducing fraudulent or illegal transactions.
Re Claim 15, Pardo discloses the information processing device according to Claim 13, however, Pardo does not expressly disclose wherein the on-chain community detection is executed through similarity evaluation between wallet clusters.
Eldefrawy discloses techniques for ranking cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency addresses. Specifically, Eldefrawy discloses
wherein the on-chain community detection is executed through similarity evaluation between wallet clusters ([0067] – “multiple cryptocurrency addresses are associated with the same forum user name,” i.e. cluster, “inter-ledger analysis to identify apparently independent addresses in different blockchains and associate them with a same user profile,” similarity evaluation between wallet clusters).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pardo’s management of NFTs with the teachings of executing a similarity evaluation between wallet clusters in Eldefrawy. One would be motivated to make this combination to determine a risk level associated with a given cryptocurrency address Eldefrawy [0007], thereby reducing fraudulent or illegal transactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takei et al. U.S. 2025/0046041 directed to providing an NFT avatar that may be used across different metaverses. See at least [0132-136].
De La Rosa et al. U.S. 2024/0338381 directed to NFT-based secure authentication and notification apparatuses, processes, and systems. See at least [0235-236].
Kim et al. U.S. 2023/0162168 directed to system for implementing resource access protocols within a networked medium. See at least [0062-63].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights