Patent Application 18306014 - Wager Ticket Converter to NFT Memorabilia

Title: Wager Ticket Converter to NFT Memorabilia

Application Information

Invention Title: Wager Ticket Converter to NFT Memorabilia
Application Number: 18306014
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-04-24T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-04-24T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 066000
Examiner Employee Number: 90925
Art Unit: 3699
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/30/2024.
Claims 1 is amended.
Claims 7-10 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 1-6 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 .

Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 is labelled as “(Original)”, but the claims contain amendments. Appropriate correction is required.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.

Pending clarity of the entities to the claims, section 33(a) of the America Invents Act rejects such claims as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
The new amendments add taking a photograph of a physical ticket. The function of taking a photograph is an insignificant extra-solution activity that can be performed by a generic device, it does not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
112
The rejection is maintained.
103
Sliwka(¶ 256) states “a user wishing to borrow money can take a collateral item (e.g., a collectible item, jewelry, a firearm, a precious metal, or the like) to a facility affiliated or otherwise supported by the platform 100. At the facility, an employee at the facility may inventory the collateral item using an interface provided by the collateral management system 802. Inventorying the collateral item may include requesting an item identifier for the collateral item, associating the item identifier collateral item with an account of the user (i.e., the owner of the collateral item), taking high resolution photographs of the collateral item, weighting the collateral item using a scale, entering a description of the collateral item, an appraisal of the collateral item, and the like. Once inventoried, the collateral management system 802 can create a virtual item representing the collateral item, and then may generate a non-fungible token corresponding to the virtual item”.

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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.

Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method.

Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “purchasing…ticket… photographing… ticket… minting… ticket… placing … for auction… and selling the NFT….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, commercial interaction, for example, auctions. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.

Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does currently recite an additional element but the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The use of a distributed ledger or blockchain does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as the blockchain recites functions of a generic computer component, such as storing records.
The claim recites “minting the wager ticket as a non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger”. According to the disclosure(¶ 8, 9, 20, 24), “In step 204, the wager ticket is converted and minted as a non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger… The NFT becomes sports fan memorabilia art,… Each ticket is then photographed and minted as a NFT on a blockchain or other distributed ledger,.” The disclosure provides no further algorithms or indications of how “minting” is performed, just that the ticket is “converted”/photographed and minted to make art. Therefore, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, and the explanation as provided by the disclosure. Up for the auction is converted/photographed ticket, which does not change the abstract idea of an auction as a commercial practice.
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.

Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “purchasing”, “photographing…”, “placing … for auction” and “selling” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a commercial interaction as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Claims 2-6 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.

Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected.

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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the steps”, “the end of the season”, “the value of the winnings” and claim 5 recites “the Ethereum blockchain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites “purchasing a physical copy of a wager ticket…photographing the physical copy of the wager ticket…minting the photograph of the physical copy of the wager ticket….” The claims are unclear and indefinite. First, the claim is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to claim functions performed by a human entity and secondly whether a single entity or multiple entities are performing the claimed process. The claims are unclear and indefinite. Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected.

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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka et al. (WO 2023172729) (“Sliwka”), and further in view of Fowler et al. (US 20220343451) (“Fowler”).
Regarding claim 1, Sliwka discloses purchasing a physical copy of a ticket on opening day (¶ 130, 853-944); photographing the physical copy of the ticket(¶ 130, 256, 263, 318, 340, 853-944); minting the photograph of the physical copy of the ticket as a non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger (Figure 87; ¶ 130, 226, 246, 256, 263, 865-867, 875-883); placing the NFT up for auction (¶ 378, 452, 640, 659, 742, 756, 761, 862, 985, 986); and selling the NFT to a highest bidder at the end of the season, wherein the highest bidder also receives the physical copy of the ticket or the value of the winnings listed on the ticket (¶ 269-275, 388, 399, 465, 745, 760, 764, 767, 785, 862, 937).

Sliwka does not disclose wager ticket, of a sport season that lists a bet amount, betting odds, and a winnings amount. Fowler teaches wager ticket, of a sport season that lists a bet amount, betting odds, and a winnings amount (¶ 11, 23, 24, 28, 101, 102, 122, 127, 139, 146, 147, 150-152, 169). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sliwka and Fowler in order to provide for wagering within sporting environments and NFT ownership (Fowler; ¶ 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, Sliwka discloses wherein the NFT is placed up for auction for the duration of the season (¶ 735, 862).
Regarding claim 3, Sliwka discloses wherein the NFT is placed up for auction for a thirty-day period at the end of the season (¶ 858, 1183).
Regarding claim 4, Sliwka discloses wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain (Abstract; ¶139, 143, 477, 479, 650, 1059).
Regarding claim 5, Sliwka discloses wherein the distributed ledger is the Ethereum blockchain (¶ 1051, 1085, 1086, 1089-1091).
Regarding claim 6, Sliwka discloses wherein the auction takes place at an internet storefront (¶ 419, 479, 756, 777, 871, 1059).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley et al., (US 20230245101) teaches bidding, tickets and NFTs.

THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.

/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699