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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on October 17, 2025. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 17, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are irrelevant as no rejection under 35 USC 101 was made in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but, as they are directed to the instantly amended claims, they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first hash represents a lower dimensional data structure than the licensing agreement itself.” Nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite this.
Further, claim 1 recites “wherein the second hash represents a root hash with another lower dimensional data structure than the first hash, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID.” Nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite this.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20: Claim 1 recites “wherein the first hash represents a lower dimensional data structure than the licensing agreement itself.” It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Is the licensing agreement represented by a particular type of data structure of a particular dimension? If so, is this limitation intended to describe the hashing function that is used to perform the hash or to describe the particular dimension of the hash? Or is this merely non-functional descriptive data about the hash? Further, no data structure for the licensing agreement is recited so it is unclear how its dimensionality is determined. Further, the term “lower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term data structure is rendered indefinite by use of the term “lower.” In light of this uncertainty, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to this portion of the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites “wherein the second hash represents a root hash with another lower dimensional data structure than the first hash, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID.” It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. First, it is unclear what is meant by a root hash, as no particular hashing function/structure type is recited. Further, it is unclear what is meant by “another lower dimensional data structure than the first hash.” Is this intended to describe the hashing function that is used to perform the hash or to describe the particular dimension of the hash? Or is this merely non-functional descriptive data about the hash? Further, no data structures for the first hash, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID have been recited so it is unclear how their dimensionality is determined. Further, the term “lower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term data structure is rendered indefinite by use of the term “lower.” In light of this uncertainty, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to this portion of the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites “determining that the first keypair signature is registered with a blockchain and was generated in response to selection of the selectable option from the first entity.” It is unclear how the system determines that the first keypair signature was generated in response to selection of the selectable option from the first entity. Is the generating intended to be part of the recited method or does it occur externally to the claim? . For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the generation of the first keypair signature as occurring externally to the claim and is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting “determining that the first keypair signature is registered with a blockchain.”
Further, claim 1 recites “signing, by the system, the second hash using a second keypair signature generated by the system.” This limitation is unclear. First, is the generation of this second keypair signature intended to be part of the recited method or does it occur externally to the claims? It is further unclear what this “second keypair signature” actually represents, as no definition of it is recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the generation of the second keypair signature as occurring externally to the claim and is interpreting the second keypair signature as an electronic signature and is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting “signing, by the system, the second hash using a second electronic signature.”
Further, claim 1 recites “storing, based at least in part on receiving the first keypair signature and generating the second keypair signature, the second hash on the blockchain.” This limitation is unclear. First, as discussed above, it is unclear if generating the second keypair signature is intended to be part of the recited method. If it is, it should be positively recited. It is further unclear how the storing of the second hash is based on the signatures. Does this mean that it is only the signed version of the second hash that is stored? Or is this saying that the unsigned second hash is stored? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting that it is the second hash that has been signed with the first and second keypair signatures that is stored.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 15-20: Claim 15 recites “storing, based at least in part on receiving the first keypair signature and generating the second keypair signature, the root hash on the blockchain instead of the contract agreement, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID such that storage of the blockchain has increased.” This limitation is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by “instead of the contract agreement, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID such that storage of the blockchain has increased.” Were these items previously stored somewhere? Are they replaced by the stored root hash? It is further unclear what is meant by “such that storage of the blockchain has increased.” What has “increased” the storage? In light of the uncertainty, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to this portion of claim 15.
Claims 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,425,230 B1 to Tang et al. (hereinafter “Tang”) in view of US 2018/0374173 A1 to Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
Claims 1 and 8: Tang discloses “a system and techniques for identity and electronic signature verification that utilizes blockchain technology…for the purposes of executing a document or a smart contract. Users may obtain a computer application from an enterprise system and may utilize the computer application to retrieve a document or select a smart contract. The identity of all users who execute the document may be verified based on an authentication by a trusted independent system, information related to the respective signers, the document or smart contract, and the authentication may be stored as transactions in a blockchain.” (See Tang, at least Abstract). Tang further discloses:
one or more processors (See Tang, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; col. 21, lines 9-10, processor); and
non-transitory computer-readable media (See Tang, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; col. 21, lines 9-10, memory, storage device) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from an electronic device, input data associated with a first entity (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 26-57, in order to electronically sign a document, the second user sends a request to an electronic signature application server for an instance of an electronic signature application; second user establishes a verified identity; to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user);
determining a verification of an identity of the first entity based at least in part on the input data (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 36-67, to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user; hash value associated with the digital address is obtained from a blockchain; the hash value and the identifier are used to verify an identity of the user as an authentic identity of the user; in response to this verification, trusted independent system generates an ownership endorsement token linked with the digital address associated to the user which is stored in the digital wallet associated with the user);
determining a transaction between the first entity and a second entity (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 1-15, smart contract executed by a first user is forwarded to a second user for execution by the second user);
generating a first hash associated with the licensing agreement based at least in part on the content, wherein the first hash represents a lower dimensional data structure than the licensing agreement itself (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 1-7, electronic signature computer application causes the processor to generate a hash value related to the document indicating the presence of a document at the document address);
determining a blockchain ID associated with at least one of the transaction or the first entity (See Tang, at least col. 16, lines 59-67, respective endorsement token associated with the first user (the user who originates the smart contract/document) is stored at an address in a blockchain);
determining a collection ID associated with at least one of the transaction or the first entity (See Tang, at least col. 16, lines 49-55, electronic signature computer application generates a document address in the blockchain for the digital credentials associated with the first user);
determining an electronic signature application ID associated with the licensing agreement (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 25-30, after the document is generated, electronic signature computer application applies a hash function to the generated document to obtain an authentication document hash value; this is stored at the document address in the blockchain);
generating a second hash associated with the first hash, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID, wherein the second hash represents a root hash with another lower dimensional data structure than the first hash, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-40, final version of the document may be identified for electronic execution by the first user and second user; a hash value of the final version of the document is generated; this hash value is maintained in the blockchain associated with the document address (analogous to the collection ID); the Examiner notes that the second hash is associated with the first hash because both are hashes of the generated document; the second hash is also associated with the authentication document hash value (analogous to the electronic signature application ID) because they are both associated with the document address; the Examiner further notes that the second hash is also associated with the endorsement token associated with the first user (the user who originates the smart contract/document) which is analogous to the blockchain ID because the generated document is associated with the first user);
presenting the second hash to the first entity via the electronic device, the second hash including a selectable option to agree to one or more terms included in the licensing agreement (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature);
receiving a selection of the selectable option and a first keypair signature (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature; second user computing device has electronic signature application installed to electronically sign the document);
determining that the first keypair signature is registered with a blockchain and was generated in response to selection of the selectable option from the first entity (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; authentication document hash may be stored as a subsequent transaction at the document address in the blockchain; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature; second user computing device has electronic signature application installed to electronically sign the document);
signing, by the system, the second hash using a second keypair signature generated by the system (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 36-67, to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user; hash value associated with the digital address is obtained from a blockchain; the hash value and the identifier are used to verify an identity of the user as an authentic identity of the user; in response to this verification, trusted independent system generates an ownership endorsement token linked with the digital address associated to the user which is stored in the digital wallet associated with the user; col. 14, lines 47-67, first user’s digital wallet is used in combination with electronic signature application executing on the first user’s computing device to sign the document); and
storing, based at least in part on receiving the first keypair signature and generating the second keypair signature, the second hash on the blockchain (See Tang, at least col. 18, lines 6-15, executed document hash value is stored as another transaction at the document address in the blockchain).
Tang does not expressly disclose determining a licensing agreement from a plurality of licensing agreements based at least in part on the transaction; and determining content associated with the licensing agreement.
However, Chen discloses a “digital content copyright management method that includes receiving a copyright processing request and constructing a copyright management transaction according to the copyright processing request; and storing the copyright management transaction in a blockchain for processing.” (See Chen, at least Abstract). Chen further discloses:
determining a licensing agreement from a plurality of licensing agreements based at least in part on the transaction (See Chen, at least para. [0058], owner of a copyright can perform a copyright management process such as copyright transfer, product addition, product abandoning, license issuance, and license distribution); and
determining content associated with the licensing agreement (See Chen, at least para. [0179], copyright transfer information and a transfer instruction are input by the owner of the copyright, where the copyright transfer information includes an address of a copyright transfer destination; the copyright management client of the owner of the copyright generates a copyright transfer request, and sends the copyright transfer request to a copyright processing apparatus in a network; copyright transfer request includes a transaction ID of a copyright transaction carrying a to-be-transferred copyright, an index of the to-be-transferred copyright in the copyright transaction, and a signature of the owner of the copyright);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang the ability of determining a licensing agreement from a plurality of licensing agreements based at least in part on the transaction; and determining content associated with the licensing agreement as disclosed by Chen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make copyright management trusted, transparent, and secure.” (See Chen, at least para. [0007]).
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 17: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above and below.
Tang does not expressly disclose determining a type of transaction associated with the transaction and selecting the licensing agreement based at least in part on the type of transaction.
However, Chen discloses determining a type of transaction associated with the transaction and selecting the licensing agreement based at least in part on the type of transaction (See Chen, at least para. [0058], owner of a copyright can perform a copyright management process such as copyright transfer, product addition, product abandoning, license issuance, and license distribution; para. [0179], copyright transfer information and a transfer instruction are input by the owner of the copyright, where the copyright transfer information includes an address of a copyright transfer destination; the copyright management client of the owner of the copyright generates a copyright transfer request, and sends the copyright transfer request to a copyright processing apparatus in a network; copyright transfer request includes a transaction ID of a copyright transaction carrying a to-be-transferred copyright, an index of the to-be-transferred copyright in the copyright transaction, and a signature of the owner of the copyright).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang the ability of determining a type of transaction associated with the transaction and selecting the licensing agreement based at least in part on the type of transaction as disclosed by Chen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make copyright management trusted, transparent, and secure.” (See Chen, at least para. [0007]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 18: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 17 discussed above.
Tang does not expressly disclose wherein the type of transaction is associated with a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), at least one copyright, at least one trademark, at least one patent, or at least one intellectual property (IP) asset.
However, Chen discloses wherein the type of transaction is associated with a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), at least one copyright, at least one trademark, at least one patent, or at least one intellectual property (IP) asset (See Chen, at least para. [0058], owner of a copyright can perform a copyright management process such as copyright transfer, product addition, product abandoning, license issuance, and license distribution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang the ability wherein the type of transaction is associated with a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), at least one copyright, at least one trademark, at least one patent, or at least one intellectual property (IP) asset as disclosed by Chen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make copyright management trusted, transparent, and secure.” (See Chen, at least para. [0007]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4. 11, and 19: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 17 discussed above.
Tang does not expressly disclose wherein the licensing agreement indicates at least one of: a full copyright transference; or a limit of commercial reproduction.
However, Chen discloses wherein the licensing agreement indicates at least one of: a full copyright transference (See Chen, at least para. [0179], copyright transfer information and a transfer instruction are input by the owner of the copyright, where the copyright transfer information includes an address of a copyright transfer destination; the copyright management client of the owner of the copyright generates a copyright transfer request, and sends the copyright transfer request to a copyright processing apparatus in a network; copyright transfer request includes a transaction ID of a copyright transaction carrying a to-be-transferred copyright, an index of the to-be-transferred copyright in the copyright transaction, and a signature of the owner of the copyright); or a limit of commercial reproduction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang the ability wherein the licensing agreement indicates at least one of: a full copyright transference; or a limit of commercial reproduction as disclosed by Chen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make copyright management trusted, transparent, and secure.” (See Chen, at least para. [0007]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 13: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above.
Tang further discloses wherein the second hash comprises a root hash of a Merkle tree (See Tang, at least col. 19, lines 20-25, hash may be a Merkle root).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 14: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above.
Tang further discloses wherein the content includes one or more terms including at least one of: an exclusivity indication; a territory indication; a term length indication (See Tang, at least col. 8, lines 38-65, contact attributes of a smart contract include term, expiration date or period); a compensation indication (See Tang, at least col. 8, lines 38-65, contact attributes of a smart contract include monthly payment or amount of money owed); or a termination indication (See Tang, at least col. 8, lines 38-65, contact attributes of a smart contract include terms of default and repossession).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15: Tang discloses:
one or more processors (See Tang, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; col. 21, lines 9-10, processor); and
non-transitory computer-readable media (See Tang, at least FIG. 7 and associated text; col. 21, lines 9-10, memory, storage device) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
generating a root hash associated with: the contract agreement; a blockchain ID associated with the transaction; a collection ID associated with the transaction; and an electronic signature application ID associated with the contract agreement, wherein the root hash represents a lower dimensional data structure than the contract agreement, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-40, final version of the document may be identified for electronic execution by the first user and second user; a hash value of the final version of the document is generated; this hash value is maintained in the blockchain associated with a document address (analogous to the collection ID); the hash is also associated with an authentication document hash value which the Examiner considers analogous to the electronic signature application ID because they are both associated with the document address; the Examiner further notes that the hash is also associated with an endorsement token associated with a user (the user who originates the smart contract/document) which is analogous to the blockchain ID because the generated document is associated with the first user);
presenting the root hash to a first entity via an electronic device, the root hash including a selectable option to agree to one or more terms included in the contract agreement (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature);
receiving a selection of the selectable option and a first keypair signature (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature; col. 18, lines 6-20, indication that the document has been electronically executed by the second user is received);
determining that the first keypair signature is registered with a blockchain and is generated in response to selection of the selectable option from the first entity indicating an agreement to one or more terms included in the contract agreement (See Tang, at least col. 17, lines 30-50, the generated document and the document address containing the authentication document hash is forwarded to a computing device of the second user; authentication document hash may be stored as a subsequent transaction at the document address in the blockchain; the Examiner notes that the second hash is also associated to the document address; the document is forwarded to the second user for electronic signature; second user computing device has electronic signature application installed to electronically sign the document);
signing, by the system, the root hash using a second keypair signature generated by the system (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 36-67, to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user; hash value associated with the digital address is obtained from a blockchain; the hash value and the identifier are used to verify an identity of the user as an authentic identity of the user; in response to this verification, trusted independent system generates an ownership endorsement token linked with the digital address associated to the user which is stored in the digital wallet associated with the user; col. 14, lines 47-67, first user’s digital wallet is used in combination with electronic signature application executing on the first user’s computing device to sign the document); and
storing, based at least in part on receiving the first keypair signature and generating the second keypair signature, the root hash on the blockchain instead of the contract agreement, the blockchain ID, the collection ID, and the electronic signature application ID such that storage of the blockchain has increased (See Tang, at least col. 18, lines 6-15, executed document hash value is stored as another transaction at the document address in the blockchain).
Tang does not expressly disclose determining a contract agreement from a plurality of contract agreements based at least in part on transaction details associated with a transaction; and determining content associated with the contract agreement.
However, Chen discloses determining a contract agreement from a plurality of contract agreements based at least in part on transaction details associated with a transaction (See Chen, at least para. [0058], owner of a copyright can perform a copyright management process such as copyright transfer, product addition, product abandoning, license issuance, and license distribution); and determining content associated with the contract agreement (See Chen, at least para. [0179], copyright transfer information and a transfer instruction are input by the owner of the copyright, where the copyright transfer information includes an address of a copyright transfer destination; the copyright management client of the owner of the copyright generates a copyright transfer request, and sends the copyright transfer request to a copyright processing apparatus in a network; copyright transfer request includes a transaction ID of a copyright transaction carrying a to-be-transferred copyright, an index of the to-be-transferred copyright in the copyright transaction, and a signature of the owner of the copyright).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang the ability of determining a contract agreement from a plurality of contract agreements based at least in part on transaction details associated with a transaction; and determining content associated with the contract agreement as disclosed by Chen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make copyright management trusted, transparent, and secure.” (See Chen, at least para. [0007]).
Claim 16: The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 15 discussed above.
Tang further discloses receiving, from an electronic device, input data associated with the first entity (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 26-57, in order to electronically sign a document, the second user sends a request to an electronic signature application server for an instance of an electronic signature application; second user establishes a verified identity; to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user); and determining a verification of an identity of the first entity based at least in part on the input data (See Tang, at least col. 10, lines 36-67, to verify an identify of a user, verification process receives request for verification of ownership of a digital credential that includes an identifier of the user and a digital address associated with the user; hash value associated with the digital address is obtained from a blockchain; the hash value and the identifier are used to verify an identity of the user as an authentic identity of the user; in response to this verification, trusted independent system generates an ownership endorsement token linked with the digital address associated to the user which is stored in the digital wallet associated with the user).
Claims 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Chen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2019/0392118 A1 to Elden et al. (hereinafter “Elden”).
The combination of Tang and Chen discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above.
Neither Tang nor Chen expressly discloses wherein the licensing agreement comprises a clickwrap agreement.
However, Elden discloses a system and method “for controlling access to a licensed software application. A blockchain-based version control system receives an access request from a user that requests access to the licensed software application. The version control system determines whether a user has accepted license terms for a current version of the licensed software application by querying a version control blockchain.” (See Elden, at least Abstract). Elden further discloses wherein the licensing agreement comprises a clickwrap agreement (See Elden, at least para. [0065], system determines that use has not accepted license terms for a software application and presents the user with a clickwrap agreement that requires the user to accept license terms before accessing the software application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the smart contract system and method of Tang and the digital content copyright system and method of Chen the ability wherein the licensing agreement comprises a clickwrap agreement as disclosed by Elden since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “to create an open and secure version control system.” (See Elden, at least para. [0021]).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689