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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 12/12/2025 Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 19, and 20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2205 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant contends that neither Meyers, Jakobsson, or Yu teach or suggest “identifying a non-fungible token associated with the user, wherein the non-fungible token associated with the user comprises one or more stored physical characteristics of the user and wherein the non-fungible token is stored on a private distributed ledger associated with a second entity, and generating an access determination for the authentication request, wherein the access determination is associated with the first entity”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, with regards to the now amended “first entity” and “second entity”, the examiner refers to Fig. 12A of Meyers. Here, a “first entity” is disclosed by the third-party (element 6028) in which a user is requesting a transaction with, as detailed in Fig. 12D and further cited below. The “second entity” is disclosed by the NFT source (element 6026), which is a blockchain element that stores a respective minted NFT (see paragraph 178 of Meyers), as detailed in Fig. 12D and further cited below. Thus, the examiner contends that Meyers not only discloses first and second entities, but further discloses one entity corresponding to a third party entity where a transaction request is directed towards and another entity, separate from the third party, that corresponds to a blockchain entity storing the claimed non-fungible token.
Second, with regards to the limitation “wherein the access determination is associated with the first entity”, Fig. 12D, step 6210-1 of Meyers discloses generating credential data to facilitate a transaction with the third party, where the credential results in the transaction with the third party being authorized (see paragraph 136 - “If authentication succeeds, the NFT transaction authenticator 6022 facilitates the transaction with the third party 6028 by authorizing completion of the transaction, e.g. by issuing a credential to the third party 6028”). Thus, the resultant credential (i.e., “an access determination”) is directly associated with the third party (i.e., “the first entity”) by virtue of being utilized to authorize an NFT-related transaction with the third party.
Thus, given the above, the examiner maintains that at least Meyers fully teaches and suggests a non-fungible token associated with a user that is stored on a blockchain entity, where the blockchain entity is separate from a first entity associated with an authentication request, and therefore the rejection is sustained as further explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable “Meyers” (US 2023/0122552) in view of “Jakobsson” (US 2023/0100422) in further view of “Yu” (US 2015/0278495).
Regarding Claim 1:
Meyers teaches:
A system for providing authentication across a distributed resource network (Fig. 12A), the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device; and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive an authentication request associated with a user (Fig. 12D, step 6002-10), wherein the authentication request comprises one or more potential physical characteristics (¶0144, “wherein the transaction request includes … and user identification data that includes a user device identifier”; ¶0142, “… user identification data that includes both a user device identifier and user biometric data that was collected via the client device 825 as part of its own user authentication process”) and wherein the authentication request is associated with a first entity (Fig. 12A, element 6028 - “Transaction with a third party”; Fig. 12D, step 6210-1 - “generating credentials data to facilitate the transaction”; ¶0136, “If authentication succeeds, the NFT transaction authenticator 6022 facilitates the transaction with the third party 6028 by authorizing completion of the transaction, e.g. by issuing a credential to the third party 6028”; i.e., the transaction request issued by a user in Fig. 12D, step 6002-10 is directed towards a third party, where the resultant credentials generated in Fig. 12D, step 6210-1 results in the transaction being authorized by the third party);
identify a non-fungible token associated with the user (Fig. 12D, step 6004-10), wherein the non-fungible token associated with the … one or more stored physical characteristics of the user (¶0144, “Step 6004-10 includes receiving, from a secure real-time NFT metadata repository and in response to the NFT identification data, NFT authentication metadata for authenticating the NFT and user authentication metadata for authenticating an authorized user of the NFT”) and wherein the non-fungible token is stored on a private distributed ledger associated with a second entity (Fig. 12A, element 6026; ¶0178, “… an NFT source 6026 that actually stores the game NFT 6522 on a blockchain … and user authentication/NFT validation can take place, for example as described in conjunction with FIGS. 12A-12D”);
compare the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request with the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user (Fig. 12D, step 6008-10; ¶0145, “Step 6008-10 includes determining, via the processor, that the user is authenticated when the user authentication metadata compares favorably to the user identification data”), wherein the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user comprises a plurality of stored physical characteristics (¶0134, “… biometric data related to fingerprints, retinal scans, facial features or other biometrics of the user and/or other user authentication data that can be used to determine if a user is the owner of the NFT or otherwise an authorized user and in particular, whether or not the user is (or is not) who they claim to be”; ¶0143, “Once the user is identified by a trusted device, the device identifier of the trusted device can be in combination with the user biometrics collected by that device to provide further security for the proposed transaction”) … ; and
based on the comparison of the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request with the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user, generate an access determination for the authentication request (Fig. 12D, step 6210-1; ¶0145, “Step 6010-10 includes generating credentials data to facilitate the transaction when the NFT is authenticated and the user is authenticated”), wherein the access determination is associated with the first entity (¶0136, “If authentication succeeds, the NFT transaction authenticator 6022 facilitates the transaction with the third party 6028 by authorizing completion of the transaction, e.g. by issuing a credential to the third party 6028”; i.e., the transaction request issued by the user in Fig. 12D, step 6002-10 is directed towards a third party, where the resultant credentials generated in Fig. 12D, step 6210-1 results in the transaction being authorized by the third party).
Meyers does not disclose:
… wherein the non-fungible token associated with the user comprises one or more stored physical characteristic of the user;
… wherein the plurality of stored physical characteristics is associated with an entry sequence, and wherein the comparison of the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request with the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user comprises comparing the entry sequence of the plurality of stored physical characteristics with the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request;
Jakobsson teaches:
… wherein the non-fungible token associated with the user comprises one or more stored physical characteristic of the user (Fig. 16A, element 1640; ¶0249, “In accordance with some embodiments, an NFT 1600 may be associated with one or more content 1640 elements, which may be contained in or referenced by the NFT. A content 1640 element may include … a biometric user identifier…”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Meyers’ system of authenticating a user associated with a NFT by enhancing Meyer’s NFT to include biometrics of a user, as taught by Jakobsson, in order to anchor an authentication factor directly into the NFT.
The motivation is to ensure that at least one authentication factor, such as biometrics, are directly embedded within an associated NFT which enables the NFT to be authenticated to a user regardless of where the NFT and user are located.
Meyers in view of Jakobsson does not disclose:
… wherein the plurality of stored physical characteristics is associated with an entry sequence, and wherein the comparison of the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request with the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user comprises comparing the entry sequence of the plurality of stored physical characteristics with the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request;
Yu teaches:
… wherein the plurality of stored physical characteristics is associated with an entry sequence (¶0063, “… accessing a biometric identifier database to retrieve a secret sequence of biometric identifiers; comparing the input sequence of biometric identifiers to the secret sequence of biometric identifiers to obtain a result…”), and wherein the comparison of the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request with the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user comprises comparing the entry sequence of the plurality of stored physical characteristics with the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request (¶0063, “… reading, at a biometric scanner coupled to a computing device, an input sequence of biometric identifiers; accessing a biometric identifier database to retrieve a secret sequence of biometric identifiers; comparing the input sequence of biometric identifiers to the secret sequence of biometric identifiers to obtain a result…”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Meyers in view of Jakobsson’s system of authenticating a user associated with a NFT by enhancing Meyers in view of Jakobsson’s authentication method to incorporate a sequence of biometric identifiers, as taught by Yu, in order to strengthen the authentication method.
The motivation is to strengthen an authentication method by incorporation of an additional authentication factor, such as a sequence, without having to change the underlying structure of the authentication method itself. In this particular instance, Meyers in view of Jakobsson employ biometrics as its authentication factor, while Yu also uses biometrics but incorporates a specific sequence of entering the biometrics to enhance its authentication method. Thus, the advantage of combining Yu’s teachings is maintaining the same authentication method (authentication of biometrics) while including an additional authentication factor (the sequence), without having to further modify the biometric factors themselves.
Regarding Claim 2:
The system of Claim 1, wherein Meyers in view of Jakobsson in further view of Yu further teaches the at least one processing device is configured to create the non-fungible token associated with the user, wherein the non-fungible token is created using information provided by the user (Meyers, ¶0132, “The secure real-time NFT metadata repository 6024 stores NFT metadata received in conjunction with NFTs created via metadata source 6026, such as one or more NFT creation systems 824. The NFTs are associated with one or more users 6020”; ¶0134, “Furthermore, when the NFT is created and/or acquired by a user, user-specific user authentication metadata is acquired or created and stored on the blockchain with the NFT with the other metadata”).
Regarding Claim 3:
The system of Claim 1, wherein Meyers in view of Jakobsson in further view of Yu further teaches the access determination comprises:
approving the authentication request in an instance in which the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request matches the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user (Meyers, Fig. 12D, step 6210-1; ¶0145, “Step 6010-10 includes generating credentials data to facilitate the transaction when the NFT is authenticated and the user is authenticated”); or
rejecting the authentication request in an instance in which the one or more potential physical characteristics of the authentication request and the one or more stored physical characteristics of the user are different.
Regarding Claim 6:
The system of Claim 1, wherein Meyers in view of Jakobsson in further view of Yu further teaches the at least one processing device is configured to receive the non-fungible token associated with the user (Meyers, ¶0073, “Furthermore, the NFT collection platform 800 allows users to buy, sell, loan, borrow and trade NFTs with other users, including their own collection NFTs created based on their own collections”) based on the authentication request (¶0133, “In operation, the NFT transaction authenticator 6022 responds to transaction requests from a user associated with an NFT to authenticate the NFT and the user and to otherwise determine the validity of the transaction that is requested”; i.e., conduct a transaction pertaining to a NFT (e.g., buying/receiving the NFT) based on the authentication request from the user).
Regarding Claim 7:
The system of Claim 1, wherein Meyers in view of Jakobsson in further view of Yu further teaches the non-fungible token is accessible to a plurality of entities across a distributed network (Meyers, ¶0180, “This allows some NFTs to be transferred when ownership of the game application is transferred via sale or micro-loan of the game NFT 6518”; ¶0132, “The NFTs are associated with one or more users 6020”), the plurality of entities comprising at least the first entity (Fig. 12A, element 6028; ¶0134, “In addition to other NFT data, the NFT has metadata that uniquely identifies the NFT, a hash or other NFT authentication metadata that can be used to authenticate the NFT and/or transaction restriction metadata indicating possible restrictions on transactions/use conditions involving the NFT”; i.e., the NFT is accessible to authorize a transaction with a third party) and the second entity (Fig. 12A, element 6026; ¶0134, “… an NFT is created via NFT source 6026…”).
Regarding Claims 8-10, 13, and 14:
Computer program product claims 8-10, 13, and 14 correspond to respective system claims 1-3, 6, and 7, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 8-10, 13, and 14 are each rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 7 above, respectively.
Regarding Claims 15-17, 19, and 20:
Method claims 15-17, 19, and 20 correspond to respective system claims 1-3, 6, and 7, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are each rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 7 above, respectively.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491