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 claims 1-7, 9-12, 16, 18-19 and 23-30, filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged. No canceled claims.
Claims 1-30 are pending and hereby examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments on the response filed on 04/01/2026 that the present prior art combination of Abdelsamie, Dorogusker, Sole, and Punja, does not teach the newly amended claims as disclosed in pages 11 and 12 of the response that {For example, the portions of Abdelsamie cited with respect to the "determine..." limitation do not teach or suggest "determin[ing] that a position of the media device is within a geographic area during capture of the sensor data" as recited in currently amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Instead, the cited portions of Abdelsamie generally discuss a "network capable of communicating data between devices." Dorogusker, Sole, and Punja do not make up for this deficiency in Abdelsamie. Furthermore, none of the cited references teach or suggest "verify[ing] that the position of the media device is within the geographic area based on an object detection analysis of the sensor data and based on a pose indication from at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the media device, [...] wherein the at least one IMU is distinct from the transceiver" as recited in currently amended claim 1 (emphasis added). For instance, none of the cited references appears to reference an inertial measurement unit (IMU) whatsoever}.
Examiner found this argument persuasive and have introduced a new prior Miesnieks (US 20130215109 A1) to teach this newly introduce elements as disclosed below. Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie teaches the newly amended claims set as disclosed below. 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 1-6, 11-15, 20 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesnieks (US 20130215109 A1) in view of Dorogusker et al. (US 20220337898 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 23, Abdelsamie teaches an apparatus and method for token generation, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory {Fig., 5 item 204}; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory {Fig., 5 item 202}; the at least one processor configured to:
receive sensor data captured using a sensor of a media device {see at least Fig., 3 item 116 ¶ 0023 “A Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) engine receives the video feed from the camera 112 and creates a three-dimensional (3D) spatial model of visual features in the video frames. Visual features are generally specific locations of the scene that can be easily recognized from the rest of the scene and followed in subsequent video frames. For example, the SLAM engine 116 can identify edges, flat surfaces, corners, and other features of real objects”, and ¶ 0019 The inertial motion unit (IMU) 113 is a sensing system composed of several inertial sensors which includes an accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometers. In other embodiments, additional sensing systems are used which also provide information about movement of the mobile device 102 in space. The IMU provides inertial motion parameters to the software 111. The IMU is rigidly attached to the mobile device 102 and thereby provides a reliable indication of the movement of the entire system and can be used to determine the pose of the system relative to the real-world objects 103A viewed by the camera 112. The inertial parameters provided by the IMU include linear acceleration, angular velocity and gyroscopic orientation with respect to the ground”}.
determine that a position of the media device is within a geographic area during capture of the sensor data based on a wireless signal received by a transceiver of the media device (e.g., network item 226) directly from a local device within the geographic area {see at least ¶ 0015 “The mobile device 102 depicts real world objects 103 which can be viewed as real world objects 103 on a live video 104 on the screen. The real-world objects 103 are translated into an internal three-dimensional representation. The mobile device uses the video captured by the camera as well as inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device 102 with respect to the real-world objects 103 and within the internal three-dimensional representation. Using the pose of the mobile device 102, virtual content 101 is superimposed on the real-world objects 103 on the screen of the mobile device 102. In one embodiment, the pose of the mobile device 102 is calculated using the video captured by the camera as well as the inertial sensors”, also ¶ 0022 “The software 111 includes a dead reckoning module (DRM) 115 to compute the pose of the mobile device 102 using inertial data. That is, the DRM 115 uses the data from the IMU 113 to compute the inertial pose, which is the position and orientation of the mobile device 102 with respect to the real-world objects 103. DRM 115 uses dead-reckoning algorithms to iteratively compute the pose relative to the last computed pose using the measurements from the IMU 113. In one embodiment, the DRM calculates the relative change in pose of the mobile device 102 and further provides a scale for the change in pose, such as inches or millimeters”, and ¶ 0047 “The instructions 224 (e.g., software) may be transmitted or received over a network
226 via the network interface device 220”}.
verify that the position of the media device is within the geographic area {see at least Fig, 1 and 2A item 103} based on an object detection analysis of the sensor data and based on a pose indication from at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the media device, wherein the object detection analysis of the sensor data includes a comparison of image feature data extracted from pixel data of the sensor data to reference image feature data associated with the geographic area to detect an object represented within the sensor data, the object being within the geographic area, and wherein the at least one IMU is distinct from the transceiver {see at least ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0021 “The software components 111 provide various modules and functionalities for enabling the system to place virtual content with real content on the screen 114. The general functions provided by the software components 111 in this embodiment are to identify a three-dimensional representation of the real world objects 103A, to determine the pose of the mobile device 102 relative to the real world objects 103A, to render the virtual content using the pose of the mobile device with respect to the real world objects, and to enable user interaction with the virtual content and other system features”, and ¶¶ 0022-0023 “A Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) engine receives the video feed from the camera 112 and creates a three-dimensional (3D) spatial model of visual features in the video frames. Visual features are generally specific locations of the scene that can be easily recognized from the rest of the scene and followed in subsequent video frames. For example, the SLAM engine 116 can identify edges, flat surfaces, corners, and other features of real objects. The actual features used can change according to the implementation, and may vary for each scene depending on which type of feature provides the best object recognition. The features chosen can also be determined by the ability of the system to follow the particular feature frame-by-frame. By following those features in several video frames and thereby observing those features from several perspectives, the SLAM engine 116 determines the 3D location of each feature through stereoscopy and creates a visual feature map 125”, and also ¶ 0024 “the SLAM engine 116 further correlates the view of the real world captured by the camera 112 with the visual feature map 125 to determine the pose of the camera 112 with respect to the scene 103. This pose is also the pose of the hardware assembly 110 or the device 102 since the camera is rigidly attached and part of those integrated components”}.
Miesnieks does not explicitly disclose “in response to verifying that the position of the media device is within the geographic area, automatically generate a token corresponding to the object, wherein a payload of at least one block of a distributed ledger identifies the token”.
However, Dorogusker disclose in response to verifying that the position of the media device is within the geographic area, automatically generate a token corresponding to the object, wherein a payload of at least one block of a distributed ledger identifies the token {¶¶ 0309-0311 “…For example, the NFT component 206 illustrated in FIG. 2 may mint an NFT on a specific blockchain if one doesn't exist already on distributed ledger 208 (e.g., per user preferences) referencing ownership of a right associated with at least a portion of the recorded media content…The NFT component 206 can be configured to mint an NFT for one or more media content in near real time, according to user's preferences (e.g., specific blockchain, expiration time, user's preferences, user's location (e.g., if it is detected that a user is operating in a wallet on a different blockchain) and the context of the conversation (or live media content) between the host and the connected user” [i.e., minting a token (NFT) for the media content according to user preferences ,e.g., location data]}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks to include the elements of using a user’s preference (e.g., location data) in minting associated token (NFT) of the media content of Dorogusker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a user preference consideration in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction. Dorogusker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, as well as using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, as well as Dorogusker 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker.
With respect to claims 2 and 24, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above,
respectively.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein the pose indication is indicative of an orientation of the media device {see at least ¶ 0015 “The mobile device uses the video captured by the camera as well as inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device 102 with respect to the real-world objects 103 and within the internal three-dimensional representation. Using the pose of the mobile device 102, virtual content 101 is superimposed on the real-world objects 103 on the screen of the mobile device 102, and ¶ 0023 “A Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) engine receives the video feed from the camera 112 and creates a three-dimensional (3D) spatial model of visual features in the video frames. Visual features are generally specific locations of the scene that can be easily recognized from the rest of the scene and followed in subsequent video frames. For example, the SLAM engine 116 can identify edges, flat surfaces, corners, and other features of real objects”}.
With respect to claims 3 and 25, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above,
respectively.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein the at least one processor configured to: modify the sensor data before the object detection analysis {see at least ¶¶ 0015-
0016, 0021}.
With respect to claims 4 and 26, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above,
respectively.
Furthermore, Dorogusker discloses, wherein the sensor data includes at least one image captured by the sensor, […] {¶ 0346 “…the contractor can provide a geo-tagged image (e.g., tagged based on location information availed by the GPS device). In some examples, location can be used for facilitating peer-to-peer payments between nearby users 714 and/or for sending users 714 notifications regarding available appointments with user(s) located proximate to the users 714. In some embodiments, location can be used for taking payments from nearby customers when they leave a geofence, or location can be used to initiate an action responsive to users 714 enter a brick-and-mortar store of a user. Location can be used in additional”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks to include the elements of using a user’s preference (e.g., location data) in minting associated token (NFT) of the media content of Dorogusker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a user preference consideration in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction. Dorogusker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, as well as using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, as well as Dorogusker 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker.
And Miesnieks further discloses “…and wherein the at least one image includes the pixel data” {see at least ¶ 0036 “…In this embodiment, the pose is provided by the user interface manager 120, though the pose could alternatively be provided directly by the pose manager 117…his virtual model of the real scene 103 is rendered transparently so it is invisible but the depth buffer is still being written with the depth of each pixel of this virtual model of the real world. This means when the virtual content 101 is added, it is correctly occluded depending on the relative depth at each pixel (i.e. at this specific pixel…”}.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein, to verify that the position of the
media device is within the geographic area based on the object detection analysis of the sensor data, the at least one processor is configured to:
detect the object and at least one portion of an environment in the sensor data based on the image feature data, wherein the at least one portion of the environment includes at least one environmental object that is distinct from the object; and verify that the at least one position of the media device is within the geographic area based at least in part on relative positioning between the object, the at least one environmental object, and the media device, wherein the relative positioning is based on the object detection analysis {see at least ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0021-0024, 0026 “The pose estimation function determines the pose of the hardware assembly 110 or system 102. The pose manager 117 computes this pose by fusing the inertial-based pose computed by the dead-reckoning module 115 and the vision-based pose computed by the SLAM engine 116 using a fusion algorithm and makes that pose available for other software components. The fusion algorithm can be, for example, a Kalman filter. The SLAM engine 116 produces the vision-based pose using a SLAM algorithm, using camera video frames from different perspectives of the scene 103 to create a visual map 125. It then correlates the live video from the camera 112 with this visual feature map 125 to determine the pose of the camera with respect to the scene 103. The DRM 115 produces the inertial-based pose using the raw inertial data coming from the IMU 113”, and ¶ 0027 “The visual feature map 125 is a data structure which encodes the 3D location and other parameters describing the visual features generated by the SLAM engine 116 as the scene 103A is observed. For example, the visual feature map 125 may store points, lines, curves, and other features identified by the SLAM engine from
the real-world objects 103A”}.
With respect to claim 6 and 27, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above,
respectively.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein, to verify that the position of the media device is within the geographic area based on the object detection analysis of the sensor data, the at least one processor is configured to: detect the object and at least [[a]]one portion of an environment in the sensor data based on the image feature data, wherein the at least one portion of the environment includes at least one environmental object that is distinct from the object; and verify that at least the at least one portion of the environment matches a known location that is known to be located within the geographic area {see at least ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0021-0024, 0026-0027}.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein, to verify that the position of the media device is within the geographic area based on the object detection analysis of the sensor data, the at least one processor is configured to: generate a map of the geographic area based on the sensor data; and verify that the position of the media device is within the geographic area based on the map {see at least ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0021-0024, 0026-0027}.
With respect to claims 12 and 28, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein, to verify that the position of the media device is within the geographic area, the at least one processor is configured to: verify receipt of a second wireless signal by the local device, the second wireless signal transmitted directly to the local device by the media device {see at least ¶¶ 0015-0016, 0021-0024, 0026-0027}.
With respect to claim 13, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein the apparatus includes the local device {[e.g., mobile device 102], ¶ 0015 “The user uses a mobile device 102, which includes in one embodiment a camera, inertial sensors and a screen. The mobile device 102 depicts real world objects 103 which can be viewed as real world objects 103 on a live video 104 on the screen”}.
With respect to claim 14, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein the apparatus includes the media device {[e.g., augmented reality (AR) 110], ¶ 0015}.
With respect to claim 15, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1.
Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses, wherein the apparatus is in the geographic area {¶ 0015}.
With respect to claim 20, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
However, Dorogusker, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: set a parameter of the token to indicate that the token is associated with a user, wherein the media device is associated with the user {see at least ¶¶ 0309-0311}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks to include the elements of using a user’s preference (e.g., location data) in minting associated token (NFT) of the media content of Dorogusker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a user preference consideration in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction. Dorogusker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, as well as using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, as well as Dorogusker 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker.
With respect to claim 22, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
However, Dorogusker, discloses, wherein the apparatus includes at least one of a head- mounted display (HMD), a mobile handset, or a wireless communication device {¶ 0334 “…the user device 1702 can be any suitable type of computing device, e.g., portable, semi-portable, semi-stationary, or stationary. Some examples of the user device 1702 can include, but are not limited to, a tablet computing device, a smart phone or mobile communication device… or other body-mounted computing device, an augmented reality device, a virtual reality device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, etc.…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks to include the elements of using a user’s preference (e.g., location data) in minting associated token (NFT) of the media content of Dorogusker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a user preference consideration in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction. Dorogusker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, as well as using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, as well as Dorogusker 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker.
Claims 7-10, 16-19, 21, 29 and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesnieks (US 20130215109 A1) in view of Dorogusker et al. (US 20220337898 A1), and further in view of Abdelsamie (US 20210256536 A1).
With respect to claim 7, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect at least a portion of an individual in the image feature data; determine an identity of the individual; and set a parameter of the token to indicate that the token is associated with the identity.
However, Abdelsamie discloses, wherein the at least one processor is
configured to:
detect at least a portion of an individual in the image feature data {¶ 0010}.
determine an identity of the individual {¶¶ 0010, 0088 “The server computer
system 124 may enable one or more registered and authenticated verifiers 108 to interact with an interface to submit a registration request to the server computer system 124 for registering one or more sites 128 and registering or enrolling one or more site devices 129 of one or more partners 104 with the server computer system 124. “}, and
set a parameter of the token [e.g., Password token] to indicate that the token is associated with the identity {¶ 0156 “…the server computer system 124 may bind credentials (One Time Password token, public key, private key, password, RSA signature, and the like.) with the successful authentication of the one or more users 102, partners 104, distributors 106, verifiers 108, and/or advertisement service providers 126, wherein the server computer system 124 may release the credentials to a service or a process of the one or more partners 104…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the wireless communication of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secure communication in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a wireless communication, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a wireless communication, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 8, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless signal includes a cellular network signal.
However, Abdelsamie discloses, wherein the wireless signal includes a cellular network signal. {¶¶ 0069-0070 “…the communications interface 408 may comprise one or more of a mobile data network transceiver, a Wi-Fi transceiver, an NFC transceiver, a Bluetooth transceiver, a network adapter, and/or the like…”, and ¶ 0153}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the wireless communication of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secure communication in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a wireless communication, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a wireless communication, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 9, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless signal includes a short-range wireless signal received from the local device while the media device is within a wireless signal transmission range of the local device.
However, Abdelsamie discloses, wherein the wireless signal includes a short-
range wireless signal received from the local device while the media device is within a wireless signal transmission range of the local device {¶¶ 0034, 0153 “…the devices may be configured to communicate with the wireless or mobile carriers , or wireless service providers and communicate with each other via short range wireless network that may be one of a Bluetooth wireless, Bluetooth low energy and/or near-field communication network, wherein the devices are located within the network coverage area of one or more registered devices with synchronized time …”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the wireless communication of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secure communication in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a wireless communication, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a wireless communication, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 10, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless signal includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal.
However, Abdelsamie discloses, wherein the wireless signal includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal {¶ 0036 “…According to various embodiments, a site device of the site devices 129 may be configured to (a) collect a variety of data using one or more sensors and/or devices of the input component 414 of the site device 129 and transmit the data to the server computer system 124, the data may comprise geographical location data (e.g., GPS/AGPS coordinates)…”, ¶ 0064 “…The input component 414 may also include a sensor for sensing information such as an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an actuator, Global Positioning System (GPS) component, Assisted Global Positioning System (AGPS) component, and the like…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the wireless communication of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secure communication in token generation of the media content. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a wireless communication, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a wireless communication, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 16, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate the at least one block, wherein the apparatus is a node of a distributed system associated with the distributed
ledger; and cause the at least one block to be appended to the distributed ledger.
However, Abdelsamie, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate the at least one block, wherein the apparatus is a node of a distributed system associated with the distributed ledger; and cause the at least one block to be appended to the distributed ledger {¶ 0036 “…a site device of the site devices 129 may be configured to (a) collect a variety of data using one or more sensors and/or devices of the input component 414 of the site device 129 and transmit the data to the server computer system 124, the data may comprise geographical location data (e.g., GPS/AGPS coordinates)… provide processing power for updating and verifying a distributed ledger that may be shared between a group of site devices… e.g., in embodiments where a blockchain may be utilized) ; and/or (e) perform the functions of the site devices 129 described herein”, ¶ 0038 “…The distributed ledger may be collectively updated and verified based on transactions made between the server
computer system 124, computing nodes 122, point of service systems 118, site devices 129…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the blockchain transaction of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 17, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly wherein the at least one block includes a hash of at least a portion of a prior block of the distributed ledger.
However, Abdelsamie, wherein the at least one block includes a hash of at least a portion of a prior block of the distributed ledger {¶ 0050 “…The blocks of the blockchain may be secured from tampering and revision. The block header of each block in the blockchain may include at least a block reference value, a timestamp, and a data reference value. The block reference value may be a reference to the prior block added to the blockchain and the data reference value may be a reference to the one or more data values included in the respective block. In an exemplary embodiment, one or more hashing algorithms (e.g., cryptographic hashing algorithms, cryptographic hash function) may be applied to the block reference value and data reference value…”, ¶ 0166 “…the distributed ledger may comprise a hash chain (cryptographic hash chain) in which the transactions that occur in the network and associated with the sites 128, users 102, partners 104, distributors 106, verifiers 108, and/or advertisement service providers 126 and other data or information are collected into blocks and each block contains a hash (cryptographic hash) of the previous block in the chain, where a blockchain may record any type of data as a form of transaction that occurs in the network…” }.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the blockchain transaction of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claim 18, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly generate the distributed ledger
However, Abdelsamie, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
generate the distributed ledger {¶ 0166 “…The transactions that occur in the
network and associated with the sites 128, users 102, partners 104, distributors 106, verifiers 108… and other information may be broadcasted to and verified collectively by the nodes of the distributed ledger …the distributed ledger may comprise digital records of information including but not limited to environmental activities information, environmental law violations information, biometric information, site images, videos and or live videos information, credential information, geographical location data, device PUFs, device identification information, account identifiers, blockchain identifiers, public keys, and/or other identification data) of a plurality of sites 128, users 102, partners 104, distributors 106, verifiers 108, and/or advertisement service providers 126 and their associated devices…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the blockchain transaction of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claims 19 and 29, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above, but does not explicitly wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to a computing device, a request to generate the at least one block, wherein the computing device is a node of a distributed system associated with the distributed ledger.
However, Abdelsamie, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to a computing device, a request to generate the at least one block, wherein the computing device is a node of a distributed system associated with the distributed ledger {¶ 0166}.
receive the at least one block; and append the at least one block to the distributed ledger {¶ 0166}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the blockchain transaction of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
With respect to claims 21 and 30, the combination Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 23 above, but does not explicitly wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine that the geographic area includes at least a threshold amount of people, wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the token corresponding to the media content in response to determining that the geographic area includes at least the threshold amount of people.
However, Abdelsamie discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured
to: determine that the geographic area includes at least a threshold amount of people, wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the token corresponding to the media content in response to determining that the geographic area includes at least the threshold amount of people [e.g., template created are within a pre-defined threshold, and wherein the pre-defined threshold relates to the data variations of the verified geographical location data (like users) of the one or more site devices] {¶ 0380 “…template created and stored during the registration are within a pre-defined threshold , and wherein the pre-defined threshold relating to the data variations of the verified geographical location data of the one or more site devices 129, point of service systems 118, user devices 110, partner devices 112, distributor devices 114, verifier devices 116, and/or advertisement service provider devices 127 may be adjusted by the server computer system 124 to limit the access of the one or more users 102, partners 104, distributors 106, verifiers 108, sites 128, advertisement service providers 126, and/or their associated devices to the server computer system 124 to a specific geographical location, specific area, a specific city, and/or specific country…”}.
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 location detection apparatus transaction of Miesnieks in view of Dorogusker, to include the blockchain transaction of Abdelsamie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and cryptographically saved media content transaction. Furthermore, Miesnieks discloses receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and Dorogusker discloses using a user preference in minting an associated Token of the media content. Abdelsamie is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a location detection of media content device transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both receiving media content from an inertial sensors to determine the position ("pose") of the mobile device data transaction, and using a user preference in minting associated Token of the media content as well as having a location detection of media content device transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Miesnieks, in view of Dorogusker, and in view of Abdelsamie, 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 Miesnieks/Dorogusker/Abdelsamie.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20110154200 A1) – Davis et al., Enhancing Media Content With Content-Aware Resources - relates to enhancing the presentation of media content (e.g., video and audio) with content-aware resources.
2) (US Pat. 9697518 B2) – Mattsson et al., Tokenization In Mobile Environments – relates generally to the field of data protection, and more specifically to the tokenization of data in mobile and payment environments.
3) (US 20060262188 A1) - Elyada et al., ¶ 0024 “… method of translating a change to an environment having an image displayed therein into input data, the method comprising: (a) capturing an image of the image displayed within the environment to thereby generate a captured image; and (b) computationally comparing at least a portion of the captured image to the at least a portion of the image displayed to thereby determine the change to the environment; and (c) translating the change into input data”, ¶ 0046.
4) (US 20210073933 A1) – Punnoose et al., - System and Method of Providing Identity Verification Services - is directed to creating a verified digital identity and more particularly to creating a verified digital identity by using direct mail to verify the identity if the individual receiving the mail piece.
5) (US 20140164415 A1) - Krzystof Duleba - Systems And Methods For Matching Similar Geographic Objects - relates generally to associating similar geographic objects and more particularly to matching different sets of data corresponding to similar geographic objects.
6) (US 20040127277 A1) – Walker et al., -Method And Apparatus For Authenticating Data Relating To Usage Of A Gaming Device - relates generally to methods and apparatus for encrypting and authenticating data relating to usage of features of games and of gaming devices. See ¶ 0424.
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