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 Action
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim rejection 35 USC 101 is withdrawn based on examiner’s amendment.
Examiner note: examiner would like to point out that while the amendment seems to overcome 101 rejections, the claim still does not indicate in detail how the validation is performed nor does it indicate how the consensus is performed i.e., consensus using single authority or multiple authorities. Clarifying claim limitation is expected.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray) and further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula).
As per claim 1, Hoffer teaches a method for minting tokens, the method comprising: identifying a set of one or more input tokens (Hoffer: ¶ 0253 – a BQR (Biometric Query Resolution) Mediator's authentication server receives a request by using a programmable application, detects authenticating data (input token) from the message header); generating an output token based on the set of one or more input tokens (Hoffer: ¶ 0253 – normalizes some data of the request into a machine readable query, and may output a privacy token to calibrate the EMR's access privilege level to registrant data),
Hoffer however does not explicitly teach wherein the output token comprises a location of each of the set of one or more input tokens on the blockchain ledger; and storing the output token to the blockchain ledger (a blockchain ledger).
Gray however explicitly teaches wherein the output token comprises a location of each of the set of one or more input tokens on the blockchain ledger; and storing the output token to the blockchain ledger (Gray: ¶ 0044 – upon determining the token's asset type/class, token management component 112 can find a token template that matches that asset type/class (block 406). Token management component 112 can then create a new token (output token) based on the matched token template (block 408), where the new token includes all of the same attributes as the original token, and cause the new token to be deployed (via the appropriate DLT proxy 116 (location)) on distributed ledger network 118 (block 410) (storing the output token to the blockchain ledger)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hoffer in view of Gray to teach wherein the output token comprises a location of each of the set of one or more input tokens on the blockchain ledger; and storing the output token to the blockchain ledger. One would be motivated to do so as upon determining the token's asset type/class, token management component can find a token template that matches that asset type/class. Token management component can then create a new token (output token) based on the matched token template, where the new token includes all of the same attributes as the original token, and cause the new token to be deployed (via the appropriate DLT proxy (location)) on distributed ledger network (storing the output token to the blockchain ledger) (Gray: ¶ 0044).
The modified teaching of Hoffer however does not explicitly teach wherein storing the output token comprises validating the output token using a consensus mechanism.
Doddavula however explicitly teaches wherein storing the output token comprises validating the output token using a consensus mechanism (Doddavula: ¶ 0011 - the one or more processors may be configured to store public keys and one or more authorization permissions of a first application and a second application in one or more registries of the one or more distributed ledger nodes in the blockchain network through at least one of the one or more authorization servers, based on consensus algorithm present in a smart contract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula to teach wherein storing the output token comprises validating the output token using a consensus mechanism. One would be motivated to do so as the one or more processors may be configured to store public keys and one or more authorization permissions of a first application and a second application in one or more registries of the one or more distributed ledger nodes in the blockchain network through at least one of the one or more authorization servers, based on consensus algorithm present in a smart contract (Doddavula: ¶ 0011).
As per claim 2, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a first token, the first token comprising a set of detailed information; and generating the output token comprises associating the output token with a generalization of at least a portion of the set of detailed information (Hoffer: ¶ 0253 – a BQR (Biometric Query Resolution) Mediator's authentication server receives a request by using a programmable application, detects authenticating data (input token) from the message header; normalizes some data of the request into a machine readable query, and may output a privacy token to calibrate the EMR's access privilege level to registrant data).
As per claim 5, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the output token comprises storing a reference to at least one input token of the set of input tokens in the output token, wherein the reference to the at least one input token is encrypted (Hoffer: ¶ 0004 – some biometric solution providers use biometric data to generate data that helps descramble an encrypted code to produce a key, often in the form of an alphanumeric string (token)).
As per claim 8, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of input tokens is a first set of input tokens and at least one of the set of input tokens was generated based on a second set of input tokens (Hoffer: ¶ 0267 – the flow logic of the processing logic module will identify the further information or activity required based on the received message, and other data from the domain or network, and will automatically format the next call or message and transmit it to the appropriate secondary logic layer application. Upon receiving a result set from the secondary logic layer application, it will repeat the process until a rule-compliant result set is completed and received).
As per claim 9, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the output token comprises a graph structure representing a hierarchy of tokens including the first and second sets of input tokens, wherein generating the output token comprises storing a digital signature of the set of input tokens (Hoffer: ¶ 0154 – if an autonomous external database requires a participant's digital signature or robust PIN for onward transfers of personal information of an identifiable registrant, the BQR Mediator may facilitate an EMR' s retrieval of that signature or PIN for that participant by locally deploying, with the help of data of the request sent over a wireless network, a biometric encryption technique to ascertain the signature or PIN).
As per claim 15, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a first token comprising a first identifier of an entity associated with the first token; the first identifier is a public key associated with the entity; the generated output token comprises a second identifier of the entity and an encrypted reference to the first token; and the encrypted reference to the first token is an encrypted copy of the public key (Hoffer: ¶ 0045 – some approaches under the rubric of Biometric Encryption, it is worth digressing, have been developed to extend certain authentication processes, including Public Key Encryption or other security conventions).
As per claim 16, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the set of input tokens comprises: a set of one or more content tokens; and at least one token comprising instructions to render content from the set of content tokens; and generating the output token comprises rendering the content from the set of content tokens based on the instructions (Hoffer: ¶ 0352 – the mediator may need to rely upon the logic or instructions in the software to identify a registrant either between receiving an authentication assertion and compiling authorized data).
As per claim 17, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: generating the output token comprises generating a log entry indicating use of at least one of the set of input tokens; the log entry comprises an identifier of an entity associated with the at least one input token; and the identifier is an alias for the entity (Gray: ¶ 0029 – token service can create and store, via secrets (alias) and account management component, an appropriate private/public key pair for the user based on the network type).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hoffer in view of Gray to teach wherein: generating the output token comprises generating a log entry indicating use of at least one of the set of input tokens; the log entry comprises an identifier of an entity associated with the at least one input token; and the identifier is an alias for the entity. One would be motivated to do so as token service can create and store, via secrets (alias) and account management component, an appropriate private/public key pair for the user based on the network type (Gray: ¶ 0029).
As per claim 18, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale while Hoffer teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium containing processor instructions (Hoffer: ¶ 0327 – the device infrastructure can include a computer readable storage medium coupled to the processor for providing instructions to the processor).
As per claim 19, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale while Hoffer teaches a set of one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine readable medium containing processor instructions for minting tokens, where execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to perform a process (Hoffer: ¶ 0327 – the device infrastructure can include a computer readable storage medium coupled to the processor for providing instructions to the processor).
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray), further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula) and further in view of US 2019/0362169 issued to Lin et al. (Lin).
As per claim 3, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 2 however does not explicitly teach wherein: the first token is an identity token associated with an individual; the set of detailed information comprises a birthdate of the individual; and the generalization indicates whether an age of the individual is over a threshold value and does not include the birthdate.
Lin however explicitly teaches wherein: the first token is an identity token associated with an individual; the set of detailed information comprises a birthdate of the individual; and the generalization indicates whether an age of the individual is over a threshold value and does not include the birthdate (Lin: ¶ 0005 – calculating an age value based on the birthday code and a current date, so as to determine whether the age value is greater than or equal to a threshold value; when the human face's frontal image and the headshot coincide, plus the age value is greater than or equal to the threshold value, then the verification is passed and the online transaction proceeds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Lin to teach the first token is an identity token associated with an individual; the set of detailed information comprises a birthdate of the individual; and the generalization indicates whether an age of the individual is over a threshold value and does not include the birthdate. One would be motivated to do so as calculating an age value based on the birthday code and a current date, so as to determine whether the age value is greater than or equal to a threshold value; when the human face's frontal image and the headshot coincide, plus the age value is greater than or equal to the threshold value, then the verification is passed and the online transaction proceeds (Lin: ¶ 0005).
7. Claims 4, 6-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray), further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula) and further in view of US 10,735,192 issued to Kim et al. (Kim).
As per claim 4, the modified teaching of Hoffer teaches the method of claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a first input token with a first policy and a second input token with a second policy; the method further comprises generating a third policy based on the first policy and the second policy; and generating the output token comprises associating the output token with the third policy.
Kim however explicitly teaches wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a first input token with a first policy and a second input token with a second policy; the method further comprises generating a third policy based on the first policy and the second policy; and generating the output token comprises associating the output token with the third policy (Kim: Claim 11 – receiving, by the first device manager from the first device, second information about a first maximum count stored at the first device; receiving, by the second device manager from the second device, third information about a second maximum count stored at the second device; and comparing, at the token manager, the first maximum count with the second maximum count to determine whether a hash code synchronization has completed successfully).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Kim to teach wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a first input token with a first policy and a second input token with a second policy; the method further comprises generating a third policy based on the first policy and the second policy; and generating the output token comprises associating the output token with the third policy. One would be motivated to do so as receiving, by the first device manager from the first device, second information about a first maximum count stored at the first device; receiving, by the second device manager from the second device, third information about a second maximum count stored at the second device; and comparing, at the token manager, the first maximum count with the second maximum count to determine whether a hash code synchronization has completed successfully (Kim: Claim 11).
As per claim 6, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein: the set of input tokens comprises an identity token for an individual; the output token comprises a license for the individual; and generating the output token comprises storing an expiration component in the output token, where a validity of the license can be determined based on the expiration component.
Kim however explicitly teaches wherein: the set of input tokens comprises an identity token for an individual; the output token comprises a license for the individual; and generating the output token comprises storing an expiration component in the output token, where a validity of the license can be determined based on the expiration component (Kim: Col. 2, ll. (27-29) – the token manager may further configured to discard the key token when a current time indicates that the validity period is expired).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Kim to teach the set of input tokens comprises an identity token for an individual; the output token comprises a license for the individual; and generating the output token comprises storing an expiration component in the output token, where a validity of the license can be determined based on the expiration component. One would be motivated to do so as the token manager may further configured to discard the key token when a current time indicates that the validity period is expired (Kim: Col. 2, ll. (27-29)).
As per claim 7, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein: the expiration component comprises a hash chain; and the validity of the license can be determined based on an amount of the hash chain that can be decrypted by the individual (Hoffer: ¶ 0208 – enabling the EMR to apply the EMR's private key to access the message containing the encrypted content and to utilize said biometric sensor on the registrant to decrypt said encrypted content of the response).
As per claim 14, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein: data from at least one of the set of input tokens is encrypted with a first encryption key; and generating the output token comprises: decrypting the data from the at least input token; encrypting the data from the at least one input token with a different second encryption key; and storing the data encrypted with the second encryption key in the output token.
Kim however explicitly teaches wherein: data from at least one of the set of input tokens is encrypted with a first encryption key; and generating the output token comprises: decrypting the data from the at least input token; encrypting the data from the at least one input token with a different second encryption key; and storing the data encrypted with the second encryption key in the output token (Kim: Col. 7, ll. (19-23) – the first device may encrypt the received first hash values and the information about the first maximum count and the validity period of the key token and store the encrypted information in an internal security area (i.e.,, storage)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Kim to teach wherein: data from at least one of the set of input tokens is encrypted with a first encryption key; and generating the output token comprises: decrypting the data from the at least input token; encrypting the data from the at least one input token with a different second encryption key; and storing the data encrypted with the second encryption key in the output token. One would be motivated to do so as the first device may encrypt the received first hash values and the information about the first maximum count and the validity period of the key token and store the encrypted information in an internal security area (i.e., storage) (Kim: Col. 7, ll. (19-23)).
8. Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray), further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula) and further in view of US 2016/0260089 issued to Chen (Chen).
As per claim 10, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein generating the output token comprises: determining whether a set of one or more conditions has been met; and generating the output token is performed when the set of conditions has been met.
Chen however explicitly teaches wherein generating the output token comprises: determining whether a set of one or more conditions has been met; and generating the output token is performed when the set of conditions has been met (Chen: ¶ 0024 – service platform establishes an output unit combination, determines whether the output unit combination meets one or more output constraints, and updates the relevant user account(s) in the event that the one or more output constraints are met).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Chen to teach wherein generating the output token comprises: determining whether a set of one or more conditions has been met; and generating the output token is performed when the set of conditions has been met. One would be motivated to do so as service platform establishes an output unit combination, determines whether the output unit combination meets one or more output constraints, and updates the relevant user account(s) in the event that the one or more output constraints are met (Chen: ¶ 0024).
As per claim 11, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 10, wherein determining whether the set of conditions has been met comprises: evaluating the set of input tokens to determine whether the set of input tokens meets at least one condition of the set of conditions; and generating the output token is performed when the set of input tokens meets the at least one condition (Chen: ¶ 0053 – the output unit combination meets this output constraint, and the process is allowed to proceed (e.g., a next output constraint, if available, is checked; when all the output constraints are met, the user accounts are updated, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Chen to teach wherein determining whether the set of conditions has been met comprises: evaluating the set of input tokens to determine whether the set of input tokens meets at least one condition of the set of conditions; and generating the output token is performed when the set of input tokens meets the at least one condition. One would be motivated to do so as the output unit combination meets this output constraint, and the process is allowed to proceed (e.g., a next output constraint, if available, is checked; when all the output constraints are met, the user accounts are updated, etc.) (Chen: ¶ 0053).
As per claim 13, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Chen teaches method of claim 10, wherein determining whether the set of conditions has been met comprises: evaluating a processing environment associated with at least one of the set of input tokens and the output token meets at least one condition of the set of conditions; and generating the output token is performed when the processing environment meets the at least one condition (Chen: ¶ 0053 – the output unit combination meets this output constraint (environment), and the process is allowed to proceed).
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray), further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula) and further in view of US 2016/0260089 issued to Chen (Chen) and further in view of US 2007/0033414 issued to Dunko.
As per claim 12, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 11 however does not explicitly teach wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a biometric verification token; evaluating the set of input tokens comprises determining whether to authorize a user based on the biometric verification token and a communication with a digital rights management (DRM) unit; and the DRM unit comprises a biometric scanner.
Dunko however explicitly teaches wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a biometric verification token; evaluating the set of input tokens comprises determining whether to authorize a user based on the biometric verification token and a communication with a digital rights management (DRM) unit; and the DRM unit comprises a biometric scanner (Dunko: ¶ 0031 – teaches sharing of DRM-protected multimedia content among different devices that are associated with one or more individuals by using biometric data obtained from the one or more individuals while ¶ 0034 – teaches the digital multimedia content and the user specific rights object may include a biometric sensor and the biometric sensor is a fingerprint scanner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula, in view of Chen and further in view of Dunko to teach wherein: the set of input tokens comprises a biometric verification token; evaluating the set of input tokens comprises determining whether to authorize a user based on the biometric verification token and a communication with a digital rights management (DRM) unit; and the DRM unit comprises a biometric scanner. One would be motivated to do so as sharing of DRM-protected multimedia content among different devices that are associated with one or more individuals by using biometric data obtained from the one or more individuals while the digital multimedia content and the user specific rights object may include a biometric sensor and the biometric sensor is a fingerprint scanner (Dunko: ¶ 0031).
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0209249 issued to Hoffer in view of US 2020/0274712 issued to Gray et al. (Gray), further in view of US 2020/0106610 issued to Doddavula et al. (Doddavula) and further in view of US 2020/0313855 issued to Yin.
As per claim 20, the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula teaches the method of claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein the consensus mechanism is selected from Proof of Space mechanisms, Proof of Work mechanisms, Proof of Stake mechanisms, and hybrid mechanisms.
Yin however explicitly teaches wherein the consensus mechanism is selected from Proof of Space mechanisms (Yin: claim 9 - using state space methodology), Proof of Work mechanisms (Yin: ¶ 0004 - one of the common consensus algorithms is PoW (Proof of Work)), Proof of Stake mechanisms (Yin: ¶ 0004 - one of the common consensus algorithms is PoS (Proof of Stake)), and hybrid mechanisms (Yin: ¶ 0011 - consensus methods that utilize a set of virtual machines to serve as both of the mining machines as well as delegates and is achieve by a hybrid mechanism of both of the proof of work and delegated proof of stake).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Hoffer in view of Doddavula and further in view of Yin to teach wherein the consensus mechanism is selected from Proof of Space mechanisms, Proof of Work mechanisms, Proof of Stake mechanisms, and hybrid mechanisms. One would be motivated to do so as Yin teaches different types of consensus mechanism and it will improve the teaching of Hopper and Doddavula (Yin: claim 9, ¶ 0004, ¶ 0009).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SM AZIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7360. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Telework;
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Shayanfar can be reached on 571-270-1050. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SM A RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434