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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claim 21, filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3-30 are pending, and hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
35 USC § 112
Claim 21 has been amended to overcome the unclear scope of the limitation “independently authenticating, the non-fungible token…”, therefore, the 112 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
35 USC § 103
The amendment and remarks/response filed on 02/25/2026 to the after Non-Final rejection filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged and entered, and Examiner found the response/remarks not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disclose that all of these elements enumerated in the response has been extensively addressed in previous Office actions. And Applicant was advised to further amend the claims to further teach away from the prior art, in the interview held on 07/10/2025, because it was established in the interview, that the way the claims are written right now, it is broad enough and the present prior art reads on it, please refer back to all the Examiner responses addressing these elements.
The claims are not amended, and therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 3
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, 3-15, 17-18 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldston et al., (US 2021/0248214 A1) in view of Hamann et al., (US 2002/0026578 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 21, Goldston teaches a system and method for generating persistently authenticatable non-fungible cryptographic tokens for a blockchain, the method comprising:
providing one or more elements of identifying information associated with an object for creating a non-fungible token (NFT) for the object, the one or more elements of identifying information including at least one element authenticating the object {¶ 0009 “…Information and assets may be stored either directly in the file or using an identifier or link that identifies the data stored on a server. Information and assets can also be viewed and managed either through a web portal and application utilizing a network connection to a server, or via native application on a user device that will access and update the data stored in the file or a combination of both…” ¶ 0012 “…identifying a salable content item that is to be put up for sale, the salable content item comprising all or part of the media content; creating, via the digital vault, a nonfungible token (NFT) container file and populating the NFT container file with the salable content item and NFT metadata pertaining to the salable content item [e.g., identifying information], the NFT metadata comprising a specification of ownership rights in the salable content item”, ¶ 0058 “…The container may also include NFTs or other tokens that can be used to track ownership in rights to the content items in the container. NFT data can also be maintained in the digital vault. NFT data can include, for example, NFT information, contract information, ownership information, works associated with an NFT, a transaction log, [e.g., more identifying information], and so on .…”}.minting the non-fungible token on a blockchain, wherein the minted non-fungible token […] {Abstract, ¶ 0125 “At operation 726, where a salable item is being transferred using an NFT transaction, the system might further be configured to mint an NFT and distribute the NFT to the new owner (s) and record the transaction in the distributed ledger .…”, ¶ 0013}.
Although Goldston is directed to an NFT transaction as disclosed in {Abstract, ¶ 0058 “The content management system may be implemented as separate components or as an integrated system, with all components in one location or application. A content or asset creation and management platform can be used to facilitate creation of the content and management of the created content… The container may also include NFTs or other tokens that can be used to track ownership in rights to the content items in the container. NFT data can also be maintained in the digital vault. NFT data can include, for example NFT information, contract information, ownership information, works associated with an NFT, a transaction log , [e.g., identifying information], and so on…”, ¶ 0215}, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Hamann discloses storing the one or more elements of identifying information in a persistent off-chain storage system, together with corresponding hashing instructions for each of the elements of identifying information {¶ 0038 “Generating a HASH over the new user certificate temporarily stored in the Smartcard (50)” (e.g., off-chain), ¶¶ 0040, 0044 “…From the first part of the certificate a HASH algorithm e.g., SHA-1, MD5) is used to form a HASH value. The HASH algorithm compresses the data from the first part of the certificate. Then the HASH value is decrypted with a crypto algorithm…”, ¶ 0047}.
preparing a certificate definition by including the hash and/or hashes in a digital […] certificate to be issued {¶¶ Abstract, 0002-0004, 0043-0044 “…the first part of the certificate a HASH algorithm (e.g., SHA-1, MD5) is used to form a HASH value. The HASH algorithm compresses the data from the first part of the certificate. Then the HASH value is decrypted with a crypto algorithm…”}.
issuing and signing the […] certificate by use of a private key of an asymmetric cryptographic key pair of a certifying authority (CA) or of a third party authenticated by the certifying authority {¶ 0003 “The … methods for digital signature are based on an asymmetrical key pair…” ¶ 0004 “…a trusted authority digitally signed the certificate. To check the certificate signature the public key of the signer is needed, which is in the certificate of the signer. This certificate is signed by a trusted authority. The recursion can go on until we arrive at the root certificate, which is something that we trust because it was distributed through a trusted channel, for example shipped with the web server”, ¶ 0047}.
wherein the […] token includes at least the hash of all and/or each of the one or more elements of identifying information and the […] certificate issued and signed by the certifying authority or by the third party authenticated by the certifying authority” {¶¶ 0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”}.
independently authenticating, the […] token, by use of the […] certificate included in the […] token, against the certifying authority and/or a corresponding validating authority.{¶ 0004 “…a trusted authority digitally signed the certificate. To check the certificate Signature the public key of the signer is needed, which is in the certificate of the signer. This certificate is signed by a trusted authority…”, and also ¶¶ 0017, 0044}.
wherein one or more of the […] token and the off-chain storage system includes [a …] certificate, the certificate including a digital signature indicating contents of the off-chain storage system, the digital signature being generated using an asymmetric cryptographic key pair from the certifying authority or a third party authenticated by the certifying authority, such that the […] token and/or the off-chain storage system is independently authenticatable against the certifying authority and/or a corresponding validating authority {¶¶ 0003-0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”, ¶¶ 0038, 0044}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches
all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses wherein the digital signature of said [“…Token…”] certificate indicates the hash of at least one of the one or more elements of identifying information.{¶¶ 0003-0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”}., and also ¶¶ 0038, 0044}.
Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses wherein the [“…Token…”] certificate includes the hash of at least one of the one or more elements of identifying information, such that said [“…Token…”] certificate indicates the authenticity of the non-fungible token. {¶¶ 0003-0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”, ¶¶ 0038, 0044}.
And Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claims 5 and 22, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, further comprising providing an identification manifest comprising a list of all of the elements of identifying information used for creating the non-fungible token and/or a certificate of the certifying authority {¶¶ 0055, “…For example, the system can store source files for content items created using the digital vault and can check (e.g., compare) the salable content item to these project files to verify its authenticity. As another example, works created via an authoring tool (e.g., Pro ToolsTM digital audio workstation for music works, Photo ShopTM for photographic works, and analogous tools for other types of works) the original project files can be verified, or in some cases rerun to recreate the work (e.g., audio output or digital photograph or final video etc.,) for sale. Thus, the original source materials, which a party merely copying the final work would not have access to, can be verified or used
to create the salable item “, ¶¶ 0053, 0058}.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the one or more elements of identifying information include at least one subject element representing the object. {¶¶ 0048, 0055 “…For example, the system can store source files for content items created using the digital vault and can check (e.g., compare) the salable content item to these project files to verify its authenticity. As another example, works created via an authoring tool (e.g., Pro ToolsTM digital audio workstation for music works, Photo ShopTM for photographic works, and analogous tools for other types of works) the original project files can be verified, or in some cases rerun to recreate the work (e.g., audio output or digital photograph or final video etc.,) for sale. Thus, the original source materials, which a party merely copying the final work would not have access to, can be verified or used to create the salable item “}.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the one or more elements of identifying information include at least one authenticity element authenticating the object {¶¶ 0050, 0058 “…The container may also include NFTs or other tokens that can be used to track ownership in rights to the content items in the container. NFT data can also be maintained in the digital vault. NFT data can include, for example, NFT information, contract information, ownership information, works associated with an NFT, a transaction log, and so on. As further noted above, where a salable content item is offered, a separate container may be created for the salable content item”}.
With respect to claims 9 and 23, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the object is a physical object and the one or more elements of identifying information include at least one of a description of unique identifying features of the object, an image or audio of the object and a frequency analysis of said image and/or audio of the object (¶¶ 0047, 0050).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the one or more elements of identifying information includes at least one contractual element authenticating contractual rights associated with the object {¶ 0010, 0063-0064}.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the one or more elements of identifying information includes smart contract code for the non-fungible token in human-readable
form {¶ 0084 “…a smart contract viewer that allows users to view a user friendly easy to
read representation of the smart contract code…”}.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses wherein the off-chain storage system comprises hashing instructions for at least one or each of the one or more elements of identifying information stored in the off- chain storage system {¶¶ 0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”, and also ¶¶ 0035, 0038 “Generating a HASH over the new user certificate temporarily stored in the Smartcard (50)” (e.g., off-chain), ¶ 0044}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses wherein all or part of the one or more elements of identifying information are stored on the off-chain storage in protected manner by encryption using the public key of a key pair held by an owner of the object or of the […] token or by a third party acting on behalf of said owner, such that the encrypted information is accessible by decryption, by use of a corresponding private key of said key pair, only to the object owner or the token holder or third party acting on their behalf {¶¶ 0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”, ¶ 0031 “A new user key pair (e.g. RSA public and private key) may be securely generated on the Smart card. When the certificate is requested at the CA by the user for one of his public keys, this is done together with the Root Certificate of the CA stored on the Smart card…”, ¶ 0044}.
And Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the non-fungible token further comprises unhashed information including a location of at least one or each of said elements of identifying information on the off-chain storage system {¶¶ 0012, 0048, 0059 “The container may be securely stored locally, on a portable storage device, or on a cloud-based storage device. The content management system may maintain pointers to file location so that all local updates can be populated to files on a cloud server as well”}.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses wherein the off-chain storage system is a dedicated storage blockchain {¶¶ 0048, 0059 “The container may be securely stored locally, on a portable storage device, or on a cloud-based storage device. The content management system may maintain pointers to file location so that all local updates can be populated to files on a cloud server as well”}.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses further comprising a computer readable storage medium connected to or attached or included with a Back-to-Physical object which is a physical manifestation of the […] token, wherein the computer readable storage medium contains a private key of a public-private key pair corresponding to the […] token {¶¶ 0004, 0031 “A new user key pair (e.g., RSA public and private key) may be securely generated on the Smart card. When the certificate is requested at the CA by the user for one of his public keys, this is done together with the Root Certificate of the CA stored on the Smart card…”, ¶ 0044 “…Then the HASH value is decrypted with a crypto algorithm. Decryption is based on the private key of a key pair. In the present case the new certificate is encrypted with the private key of the CA”}.
Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claims 10 and 24, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the object is a digital object and the one or more elements of identifying information include at least one of source material and an image and/or audio of the object {¶¶ 0047, 0050}.
With respect to claims 6 and 25, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the one or more elements of identifying information includes at least one provenance element establishing evidence
of ownership of the object and/or a pre-blockchain history of the object {¶¶ 0010-0013}.
With respect to claim 26, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses, wherein storing the one or more elements of identifying information in the off-chain storage system comprises storing corresponding hashing instructions for each of the one or more elements of identifying information {¶¶ 0006-0007, 0028 “…At manufacturing time especially during personalization or initialization of the Smart card, the root certificate(2) of the certificate authority (CA) and the public root key(4) of the CA extracted from the root certificate(2) are securely stored as objects in the EEPROMC1). Both objects (2, 4) are stored via an access condition So that they cannot be replaced or deleted by unauthorized operations after the Smart card has been issued…”, ¶ 0031 “A new user key pair (e.g., RSA public and private key) may be securely generated on the Smart card. When the certificate is requested at the CA by the user for one of his public keys, this is done together with the Root Certificate of the CA stored on the Smart card…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the method further comprises providing links to a location of each of said elements of identifying information on the off-chain storage system and attaching said links to the non-fungible token {¶¶ 0009, 0048 “The information stored in the container may be one or more content items of various types and related files themselves, it may be in the form of links to the data or files stored elsewhere, it may be a link to third party data or services, or it may be a combination of the foregoing...”}.
With respect to claim 28, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 21 above.
Furthermore, Hamann discloses, wherein minting the […] token on the blockchain is performed by signing the […] token using a private key of a key pair generated by an owner of the object or of the […] token or by a third party acting on behalf of said owner, said key pair depending in hierarchical manner from said certifying authority, such that authenticity and integrity and/or identity of said owner of the object or of the […] or of said third party acting on behalf of said owner is independently authenticatable against the certifying authority and/or the validating authority {¶¶ 0004, 0017 “…Any application using the user certificates and its related user private keys on the token is able to verify the user certificate using this secure public root key of the CA stored on the token…”), ¶ 0031 “A new user key pair (e.g. RSA public and private key) may be securely generated on the Smart card. When the certificate is requested at the CA by the user for one of his public keys, this is done together with the Root Certificate of the CA stored on the Smart card…”, ¶ -0044}.
And Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {Abstract, ¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston to include the elements of hashed certificate of authenticity in Goldston’s NFT transaction of Hamann. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party validation of the NFT ownership. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information. Hamann is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, as well as including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston, as well as Hamann would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldston et al., (US 2021/0248214 A1) in view of Hamann et al., (US 2002/0026578 A1) and
further in view of Madhu Vijayan, (US 2020/0005284 A1).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-fungible token is an ERC-721 token on the Ethereum blockchain.
However, Vijayan discloses wherein the non-fungible token is an ERC-721 token on the Ethereum blockchain {¶ 0066}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston in view of the hashed certificate of authenticity of Hamann to include the elements of have an Ethereum standard compliance in an NFT transaction of Vijayan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a protected and trusted third-party NFT transaction. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and Hamann discloses including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction. Vijayan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of have an Ethereum standard compliance in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction as well as including the elements of have an Ethereum standard compliance in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston in view of Hamann, as well as Vijayan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann/Vijayan.
Claims 19-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldston et al., (US 20210248214 A1) in view of Hamann et al., (US 20020026578 A1) and further in view of Copeland et al., (US 20230085677 A1, PCT 63246390).
With respect to claims 19 and 29, the combination of Goldston in view of Hamann teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 21 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the method further comprises the
steps of obtaining a Back-to-Physical object which is a physical manifestation of the object associated with non-fungible token {¶¶ 0011-0012 “…Some embodiments of the application are directed to methods , systems , or computer readable media comprising, for example, creating, via a digital vault, a container file comprising media content submitted by a user and content metadata ; verifying , via the digital vault , a completeness of the content metadata associated with the media content in the container file…”, ¶¶ 0051, 0057}.
providing a second blockchain network including a second distributed blockchain adapted for recording a Back-to-Physical non-fungible token located at a corresponding public address on the second blockchain, the Back-to-Physical non-fungible token being associated with the Back- to-Physical object {¶¶ 0011-0012, 0051, 0057}.
creating the Back-to-Physical non-fungible token on the second blockchain according to the method of claim 20, such that the Back-to-Physical non-fungible token establishes a long-term and persistent link between the original NFT and said Back-to-Physical object by use of a Back-to-Physical non-fungible token certificate which is included in said Back-to-Physical non-fungible token and which certifies said link between the original NFT and said Back-to-Physical object {¶¶ 0215, 0277 “…the system can establish a secure and immutable history of communication and activity associated with media content, including the inception and evolution of the media content. The system can create an audit trail of the creative discussion process. This may include cloud storage…”}.
And Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction (Abstract, ¶¶ 0058 “The
content management system may be implemented as separate components or as an integrated system, with all components in one location or application. A content or asset creation and management platform can be used to facilitate creation of the content and management of the created content… The container may also include NFTs or other tokens that can be used to track ownership in rights to the content items in the container. NFT data can also be maintained in the digital vault. NFT data can include, for example NFT information, contract information, ownership information, works associated with an NFT, a transaction log , and so on…”, ¶ 0215}.
The combination of Goldston in view of Hamann does not explicitly disclose providing a near field communication (NFC) tag which is adapted to be connected to or attached or included with the Back-to-Physical object.
programming into said NFC tag a public-private key pair corresponding to said Back-to-Physical NFT certificate and connecting the NFC tag to or attaching or including the NFC tag with said Back-to-Physical object.
However, Copeland discloses providing a near field communication (NFC) tag which is adapted to be connected to or attached or included with the Back-to-Physical object {¶ 0003 “The system of the present disclosure creates a more complete NFT
experience by giving owners access to digital files via a physical token such as a Near Field Communication ("NFC") enabled card or chip which may be embedded in any physical object. This system allows artists to distribute their work directly to fans without using intermediaries… The disclosed system also gives NFT owners physical access to their digital content. NFT owners may thus be provided both tangible proof of NFT ownership, and quick access to the NFT content they own…”, and also PCT page 1 line 8 of 34 – page 2 line 18, comparably ¶¶ 0024-0025 “…In another aspect, the token reader 107 may also be configured as an NFT access device such as a smart phone, tablet, or other computing device configured to experience the NFT”, ¶¶ 0053-0054, 0118}.
programming into said NFC tag a public-private key pair corresponding to said Back-to-Physical NFT certificate and connecting the NFC tag to or attaching or including the NFC tag with said Back-to-Physical object {PCT- page 20 of 34 lines 3-13, ¶¶ 0003,0053-0054, 0118}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston in view of the hashed certificate of authenticity of Hamann to include the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction of Copeland. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected and secure communication environment in an NFT transaction. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and Hamann discloses including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction. Copeland is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction as well as including the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston in view of Hamann, as well as Copeland would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann/Copeland.
With respect to claims 20 and 30, the combination of Goldston and Hamann in view of Copeland teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 19 and 29 above.
Furthermore, Goldston discloses, wherein the step of creating the Back-to-Physical NFT comprises providing one or more Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information which establish said link between the original NFT and said Back-to-Physical object {¶¶ 0013, 0048}.
storing said one or more Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information on the off-chain storage system, preparing a Back-to-Physical identification manifest comprising a list of Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information required and/or desired in the Back-to-Physical NFT and/or a certificate of the certifying authority {¶¶ 0013, 0048, 0059, 0071}.
hashing of all and/or each of the one or more Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information which establish said link between the original NFT and said Back-to-Physical object and attaching the Back-to-Physical identification manifest and said hash and/or hashes to the Back-to-Physical NFT {¶¶ 0217, 0227-0228}.
And Hamann further disclose preparing a Back-to-Physical certificate definition by including the hash and/or hashes and the Back-to-Physical manifest in the digital Back-to-Physical […] certificate to be issued {¶¶ Abstract, 0002-0004, 0043-0044}.
issuing and signing said Back-to-Physical […] certificate by said certifying authenticity or by the third party authenticated by the certifying authority {¶¶ Abstract, 0002-0004, 0038, 0044-0047}.
wherein the Back-to-Physical […] is independently authenticatable, by use of said Back-to-Physical […] certificate included in the Back-to-Physical […], against said certifying authority and/or said validating authority and/or, by use of said hashes of each of said Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information included in the Back-to-Physical […], against the one or more Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information in the off-chain storage system {¶¶ Abstract, 0002-0004, 0038, 0044-0047}.
Copeland further disclose storing a hash of said Back-to-Physical elements of identifying information in the NFC tag {¶¶ 0053-0054, 0058}.
And Goldston further discloses an NFT transaction {Abstract, ¶¶ 0058, 0215}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the NFT transaction of Goldston in view of the hashed certificate of authenticity of Hamann to include the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction of Copeland. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected and secure communication environment in an NFT transaction. Furthermore, Goldston discloses having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and Hamann discloses including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction. Copeland is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having to create an NFT transaction associated with identifying information, and including the elements of hashed certificate by a certificate of authenticity in an NFT transaction as well as including the elements of NFC connection in an NFT transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Goldston in view of Hamann, as well as Copeland would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Goldston/Hamann/Copeland.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20220069996 A1) – Xue et al., Systems And Methods For Generating Customized Non-Fungible Tokens - related to the field of distributed ledgers. More particularly, the present disclosure is related to generating customized non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that can be stored in distributed ledgers.
2) (US 20230205849 A1) – Jackson et al., Digital and Physical Asset Tracking and Authentication via Non-Fungible Tokens on a Distributed Ledger – relates to techniques that facilitate digital asset tracking of digital media files, using non-fungible tokens (NFTs) stored on a distributed ledger. An NFT asset controller is described that can associated NFTs to digital assets (e.g., digital media files) to provide verifiable proof of ownership.
3) (US 20230139878 A1) – Clark et al., System and Method for Providing Persistent Authenticatable Non-Fungible Token - relates to digital certification and authentication of digital, physical, and intangible objects, and more specifically, to methods and systems for long-term authentication of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) secured on a blockchain.
4) (US Pat., 12406268 B1) – Jones Jr., Non-fungible Token Transaction Management Systems And Methods - relates generally to systems and methods related to non-fungible tokens. More specifically, the techniques discussed herein relate to management of digital transactions involving
non-fungible tokens. For Example, C10: L64-C11:38.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights