Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 2/6/2025. Claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending and are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Robotham and Hopkins have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated from amending the independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The instant rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically argued in the Applicant's response.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented as below.
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 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 1-2, 6, 10-12 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robotham (US 2021/0150626 A1), in view of Hopkins (US 10521780 B1), further in view of Davis (US 20210075825 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robotham teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A system, comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to: (Robotham; Para. [0019]: Communications devices including processors and memories)
store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) associated with the vehicle identifier on an electronic ledger, (Robotham; Paras. [0009]-[0010]: Non-fungible tokens representing distinguishable assets and ownership thereof, such as a vehicle identification number in a DLN such as a blockchain (i.e. store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) associated with the vehicle identifier on an electronic ledger))
Robotham does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the electronic ledger is a distributed electronic ledger shared between at least the computer and a remote computer;
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions from the electronic ledger, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions,
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hopkins discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the electronic ledger is a distributed electronic ledger shared between at least the computer and a remote computer; (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle between a buyer and seller application (i.e. the electronic ledger is a distributed electronic ledger shared between at least the computer and a remote computer))
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT))
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions from the electronic ledger, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions, (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle, the buyer application may employ the private key to activate the ignition system of the vehicle and enable the buyer to operate the vehicle (i.e. upon retrieving the identified programming instructions from the electronic ledger, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions))
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered. (Hopkins; Col. 6, Lines 4-6 & 12-20: the application (e.g., executing on the buyer's computing device) may communicate with the ignition system via near field communication (NFC) or other communication methods (i.e. actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in the off state). The application may function as a starter by using the private key to access the ignition system and send an instruction that causes the ignition system to start the vehicle)
Hopkins is combinable with Robotham because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham to incorporate digital contracts and associated functions related to blockchain tokens as in Hopkins in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information to be accessed may be securely stored in a distributed ledger.
Robotham and Hopkins do not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Davis; Para(s). [0049] & [0068]: Each vehicle has a vehicle operator operating the vehicle when the vehicle is turned on (i.e. upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered). The identity verification module obtains data from on the blockchain or off the blockchain and uses the identity business rules to process the data to verify the identity of the vehicle operator (i.e. query the electronic ledger ))
Davis is combinable with Robotham and Hopkins because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham and Hopkins to incorporate querying a blockchain for verification as in Davis in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which vehicle operators may be verified upon vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 6, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 1.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions include instructions to transition a vehicle component associated with the NFT between a disabled state and an enabled state. (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle, the buyer application may employ the private key to activate the ignition system of the vehicle and enable the buyer to operate the vehicle (i.e. instructions to transition a vehicle component associated with the NFT between a disabled state and an enabled state))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Robotham teaches the limitations of claim 11 substantially as follows:
A system, comprising: a vehicle computer including a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions such that (Robotham; Para. [0019]: Communications devices including processors and memories)
the vehicle computer is programmed to store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) on an electronic ledger; (Robotham; Paras. [0009]-[0010]: Non-fungible tokens representing distinguishable assets and ownership thereof, such as a vehicle identification number in a DLN such as a blockchain (i.e. store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) associated with the vehicle identifier on an electronic ledger))
a remote computer including a second processor and a second memory, the second memory storing instructions such that (Robotham; Para. [0019]: Communications devices including processors and memories)
the remote computer is programmed to store programming instructions associated with respective NFTs on the electronic ledger; (Robotham; Paras. [0009]-[0010]: Non-fungible tokens representing distinguishable assets and ownership thereof, such as a vehicle identification number in a DLN such as a blockchain (i.e. store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) associated with the vehicle identifier on an electronic ledger))
Robotham does not teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
wherein the vehicle computer is further programmed to: upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions,
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hopkins discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
wherein the vehicle computer is further programmed to: upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT))
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions, (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle, the buyer application may employ the private key to activate the ignition system of the vehicle and enable the buyer to operate the vehicle (i.e. upon retrieving the identified programming instructions from the electronic ledger, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions))
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered. (Hopkins; Col. 6, Lines 4-6 & 12-20: the application (e.g., executing on the buyer's computing device) may communicate with the ignition system via near field communication (NFC) or other communication methods (i.e. actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in the off state). The application may function as a starter by using the private key to access the ignition system and send an instruction that causes the ignition system to start the vehicle)
Hopkins is combinable with Robotham because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham to incorporate digital contracts and associated functions related to blockchain tokens as in Hopkins in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information to be accessed may be securely stored in a distributed ledger.
Robotham and Hopkins do not teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
wherein the vehicle computer is further programmed to: upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
wherein the vehicle computer is further programmed to: upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, query the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Davis; Para(s). [0049] & [0068]: Each vehicle has a vehicle operator operating the vehicle when the vehicle is turned on (i.e. upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered). The identity verification module obtains data from on the blockchain or off the blockchain and uses the identity business rules to process the data to verify the identity of the vehicle operator (i.e. query the electronic ledger))
Davis is combinable with Robotham and Hopkins because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham and Hopkins to incorporate querying a blockchain for verification as in Davis in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which vehicle operators may be verified upon vehicle operation.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the systems of claims 1 and 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as follows:
further comprising the remote computer, including a second processor and a second memory storing instructions executable by the second processor such that the remote computer is programmed to: (Hopkins; Col. 6, Lines 43-58: processes can be performed by on board devices or by wearable (i.e. remote computer) devices)
store the programming instructions associated with the NFT to the electronic ledger; (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. store the programming instructions associated with the NFT to the electronic ledger))
upon determining that the vehicle identifier is associated with the NFT, permit the computer to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. determining that the vehicle identifier is associated with the NFT, permit the computer to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
upon determining that the vehicle identifier is not associated with the NFT, prevent the computer from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT. (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. determining that the vehicle identifier is not associated with the NFT, prevent the computer from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
The same motivation to combine as in claims 1 and 11 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the systems of claims 1 and 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claims 10 and 19 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a vehicle component based on vehicle parameters associated with the NFT. (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle, the buyer application may employ the private key to activate the ignition system of the vehicle and enable the buyer to operate the vehicle (i.e. instructions to actuate a vehicle component based on vehicle parameters associated with the NFT))
The same motivation to combine as in claims 1 and 11 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Robotham teaches the limitations of claim 20 substantially as follows:
A method, comprising:
storing, via a vehicle computer, a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) on an electronic ledger; (Robotham; Paras. [0009]-[0010]: Non-fungible tokens representing distinguishable assets and ownership thereof, such as a vehicle identification number in a DLN such as a blockchain (i.e. store a vehicle identifier and a nonfungible token (NFT) associated with the vehicle identifier on an electronic ledger))
Robotham does not teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
storing, via a remote computer, programming instructions associated with respective NFTs on the electronic ledger;
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state via the vehicle computer, in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, querying the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions, actuating, via the vehicle computer, a component in the vehicle based on the identified programming instructions,
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hopkins discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
storing, via a remote computer, programming instructions associated with respective NFTs on the electronic ledger; (Hopkins; Col. 2, Lines 1-9: A token scannable for accessing buyer information stored in the blockchain (i.e. store the programming instructions associated with the NFT to the electronic ledger))
upon retrieving the identified programming instructions, actuating, via the vehicle computer, a component in the vehicle based on the identified programming instructions, (Hopkins; Col. 16, Lines 1-17: A digital contract stored on a blockchain for a transaction regarding a vehicle, the buyer application may employ the private key to activate the ignition system of the vehicle and enable the buyer to operate the vehicle (i.e. upon retrieving the identified programming instructions from the electronic ledger, actuate a component in the vehicle based on the retrieved programming instructions))
wherein the component is one of the plurality of components in the vehicle that are actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in an off state in which the plurality of components in the vehicle are not powered. (Hopkins; Col. 6, Lines 4-6 & 12-20: the application (e.g., executing on the buyer's computing device) may communicate with the ignition system via near field communication (NFC) or other communication methods (i.e. actuatable when the vehicle is in the on state and not when the vehicle is in the off state). The application may function as a starter by using the private key to access the ignition system and send an instruction that causes the ignition system to start the vehicle)
Hopkins is combinable with Robotham because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham to incorporate digital contracts and associated functions related to blockchain tokens as in Hopkins in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information to be accessed may be securely stored in a distributed ledger.
Robotham and Hopkins do not teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state via the vehicle computer, in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, querying the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Davis discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state via the vehicle computer, in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered, querying the electronic ledger to identify programming instructions associated with the NFT; and (Davis; Para(s). [0049] & [0068]: Each vehicle has a vehicle operator operating the vehicle when the vehicle is turned on (i.e. upon transitioning a vehicle to an on state in which a plurality of components in the vehicle are powered). The identity verification module obtains data from on the blockchain or off the blockchain and uses the identity business rules to process the data to verify the identity of the vehicle operator (i.e. query the electronic ledger))
Davis is combinable with Robotham and Hopkins because both are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robotham and Hopkins to incorporate querying a blockchain for verification as in Davis in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which vehicle operators may be verified upon vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 21, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 1.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 21 as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions specify the component and data that is output by the component. (Davis; Para(s). [0076]: upon receipt of a dashboard request, to collect data from on the blockchain and/or off the blockchain and to generate one or more dashboard display views, each illustrating key performance indicators and metrics for categories of information (i.e. the programming instructions specify the component and data that is output by the component))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Claims 3-5, 8, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robotham (US 2021/0150626 A1), in view of Hopkins (US 10521780 B1), further in view of Davis (US 20210075825 A1), as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, further in view of Konda (US 2020/0059364 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 2.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The system of claim 2, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity; and
upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konda discloses the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The system of claim 2, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity; and (Konda; Para. [0027]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network (i.e. record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity))
upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT. (Konda; Paras. [0027] & [0041]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network and nullifying the existing token commitment (i.e. upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
Konda is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate the transfer of ownership of an NFT between transaction participants as in Konda in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ownership of the associated asset may be mediated via a secure blockchain.
Regarding claim 4, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 3.
Robotham, Hopkins, Davis and Konda teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The system of claim 3, wherein the record includes a request, from the other entity, for the NFT and a confirmation, from the computer, indicating that the NFT is transferred to the other entity. (Konda; Paras. [0027] & [0041]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network involving generating a new token and nullifying the existing token commitment (i.e. the record includes a request, from the other entity, for the NFT and a confirmation, from the computer, indicating that the NFT is transferred to the other entity))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 3 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 2.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The system of claim 2, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle; and
upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konda discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The system of claim 2, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle; and (Konda; Para. [0027]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network (i.e. record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle))
upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT. (Konda; Paras. [0027] & [0041]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network involving generating a new token and nullifying the existing token commitment (i.e. upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
Konda is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate the transfer of ownership of an NFT between transaction participants as in Konda in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ownership of the associated asset may be mediated via a secure blockchain.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the systems of claims 1 and 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claims 8 and 17 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a speaker in the vehicle to provide sound data associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konda discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 17 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a speaker in the vehicle to provide sound data associated with the NFT. (Konda; Paras. [0008] & [0095]: sale of a digital music file accomplished via token commitments (i.e. sound data associated with the NFT), computers of the system having speaker or sound generating output (i.e. the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a speaker in the vehicle to provide sound data))
Konda is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate music files associated with blockchain tokens as in Konda in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which possession of different media types may be mediated by a token based blockchain system.
Regarding claim 13, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity; and
upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konda discloses the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity; and (Konda; Para. [0027]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network (i.e. record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from the vehicle to another entity))
upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT. (Konda; Paras. [0027] & [0041]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network and nullifying the existing token commitment (i.e. upon recording the record, prevent the vehicle from accessing the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
Konda is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate the transfer of ownership of an NFT between transaction participants as in Konda in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ownership of the associated asset may be mediated via a secure blockchain.
Regarding claim 14, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the limitations of claim 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle; and
upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konda discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the remote computer is further programmed to:
record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle; and (Konda; Para. [0027]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network (i.e. record in the electronic ledger a record that the NFT is transferred from another entity to the vehicle))
upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT. (Konda; Paras. [0027] & [0041]: Transferring a non-fungible token representing an asset between transaction participants in a blockchain network and nullifying the existing token commitment (i.e. upon recording the record, allow the vehicle to access the programming instructions associated with the NFT))
Konda is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate the transfer of ownership of an NFT between transaction participants as in Konda in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ownership of the associated asset may be mediated via a secure blockchain.
Claims 7, 9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robotham (US 2021/0150626 A1), in view of Hopkins (US 10521780 B1), further in view of Davis (US 20210075825 A1), as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, further in view of Brown (US 2022/0339546 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the systems of claims 1 and 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claims 7 and 15as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a projector in the vehicle to project image data associated with the NFT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses the limitations of claims 7 and 15 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a projector in the vehicle to project image data associated with the NFT. (Brown; Para. [0023]: Displaying an image associated with an NFT onto a remove vehicle (i.e. actuate a projector in the vehicle to project image data associated with the NFT))
Brown is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate different media types associated with NFTs as in Brown in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which possession of different media types may be mediated by a token based blockchain system.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Robotham, Hopkins and Davis teach the systems of claims 1 and 11.
Robotham, Hopkins and Davis do not teach the limitations of claims 9 and 18 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a display in the vehicle to display a set of display content associated with the NFT. (Brown; Para. [0023]: Displaying an image associated with an NFT onto a remove vehicle (i.e. actuate a display in the vehicle to display a set of display content associated with the NFT ))
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses the limitations of claims 9 and 18 as follows:
wherein the programming instructions include instructions to actuate a display in the vehicle to display a set of display content associated with the NFT. (Brown; Para. [0023]: Displaying an image associated with an NFT onto a remove vehicle (i.e. actuate a display in the vehicle to display a set of display content associated with the NFT ))
Brown is combinable with Robotham, Hopkins and Davis because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage on a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Robotham, Hopkins and Davis to incorporate different media types associated with NFTs as in Brown in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which possession of different media types may be mediated by a token based blockchain system.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Wang (US 2021/0133713 A1) which teaches an asset right management system based on a blockchain. In this system, an asset smart contract is executed to generate a fungible ownership token representing the ownership of the asset, and generate a non-fungible use-right token representing the right to use the asset, based on the ownership token.
Di Cosola (US 2022/0274703 A1) which teaches a blockchain based system for generating reports from an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 extension fee 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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.I.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights