DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 9/29/2025.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 14 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-22 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-22 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2025 has been entered.
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 4 and 16 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 4 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transactable credit is a carbon credit or carbon offset, and wherein the physical asset is a parcel of land or one or more plants on the parcel of land.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
upon receiving a request to move the physical asset to a current geolocation
The application as originally filed does not disclose or suggest that at the time of filing the applicant had possession of moving an asset, where the asset is a parcel of land as recited in claims 4 and 16. Therefore, the limitations of claims 4 and 16 are not supported by the written description and in view of the amendments to claim 1 and 14, constitute new matter.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220215382 A1) in view of Cantrell (US 20190303853 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Chen teaches:
In a computer system that implements a distributed ledger trust network ("DLTN"), a method comprising: {Abstract “Methods and systems are presented for providing instant authentication of a product and enhanced user experience with the product via blockchain [DLTN] technologies.”}
determining an initial geolocation of a physical asset based at least in part on a message sent by a client computing device, the physical asset being fixed to the initial geolocation, the initial geolocation of the physical asset having been identified (a) using a global positioning system ("GPS") receiver of the client computing device while at the geolocation of the physical asset or (b) by one or more cellular towers in communication with the client computing device while at the initial geolocation of the physical asset; {[0024] “The device attributes retrieved by the product verification system may include a geographical location detected by a geographical component of the user device (e.g., a GPS component)”}
generating a transactable credit representing establishment of the physical asset at the initial geolocation; {[0059] “The product verification module 132 may issue [generating] (e.g., mint) tokens [transactable credit] corresponding to various instances (or anticipated instances) of a product [physical asset] automatically or upon receiving a request from a manufacturer.”}
establishing a decentralized chain of custody for indicating provenance of the transactable credit in a distributed ledger, including storing, across one or more records of the distributed ledger for the transactable credit, asset data describing the physical asset, initial geolocation data describing the initial geolocation at which the physical asset has been established, and transactable credit data describing the transactable credit, {[0066] “To produce the ledger 400, a single device (e.g., the service provider server 130) or a distributed network of devices may operate to agree on a single history of transactions in the order in which they were received such that it may be determined that a transaction between a transferrer and a transferee of a token is the first transaction associated with that electronic token from the transferrer. Each device in the distributed network operates to collect new transactions into a block, and then to increment a proof-of work system that includes determining a value that when hashed with the block provides a required number of zero bits.”}
wherein the initial geolocation data is stored in a first record among the one or more records, and wherein each given record of the one or more records that is after the first record in the distributed ledger stores a hash value for the given record that logically links the given record to its previous record in the distributed ledger, thereby associating the given record, through the distributed ledger, with the initial geolocation data stored in the first record; {[0067] “For example, for a block [record] 402 that includes a plurality of transactions 402a, 402b, and up to 402c, a device in the distributed network may increment a nonce in the block 402 until a value is found that gives a hash [hash value] of the block 402 the required number of zero bits. The device may then ‘chain’ [logically links] the block 402 to the previous block 404 (which may have been ‘chained’ to a previous block, not illustrated, in the same manner).”}
authorizing a transaction involving the transactable credit using the decentralized chain of custody, including:
accessing the decentralized chain of custody in the distributed ledger; {[0025] “The product verification system may attempt to determine a token corresponding to a particular instance of a product based on the code. For example, the product verification system may use a hash table or a ‘chain explorer’ [accessing the decentralized chain] (a UI interface attached with an archive node of the blockchain which would contain all historical data of the chain)”; Abstract “The product verification system traverses a blockchain to access data associated with the token.”}
comparing the current geolocation of the physical asset, as indicated by the current geolocation data stored in the decentralized chain of custody, to a geolocation provided in a request for the transaction; and {[0027] “upon receiving the code [request for the transaction], the product verification system may check the device attributes (e.g., the device identifier, the time when the code is received, the geographical location [geolocation provided in a request] of the user device that submitted the code, etc.) against device attributes of previously authentication requests that include the code. If another request for authenticating the same instance of the product (e.g., including the same code) was submitted within a time threshold by another device (e.g., having a different device identifier) from another geographical location [current geolocation], the product verification system may determine that the instance of the product captured by the user device is likely a counterfeit, and would not authenticate the instance of the product.”}
verifying that the transactable credit is owned by one party to the transaction; and {[0063] “Specifically, in transaction A, a hash of the public key of owner 316 (i.e., the owner receiving, as a result of transaction A, the electronic token 300.sub.1 defined by digital signatures provided up to transaction A) and the previous transaction (not illustrated, but occurring prior to transaction A) was signed by owner 318 (i.e., the owner providing, as a result of transaction A, the electronic token 300.sub.1 defined by digital signatures provided up to transaction A) using a private key and added to an initial electronic token (which was defined by digital signatures provided up to the transaction prior to transaction A) such that the electronic coin 302 was transferred to owner 316.”}
The transaction requiring a digital signature of the owner reads on verifying that the transactable credit is owned by one party.
storing transaction data for the transaction in the distributed ledger as part of the decentralized chain of custody, the transaction data being stored in a third record of the distributed ledger, the third record also storing a hash value for the third record that logically links the third record to its previous record in the distributed ledger, thereby associating the third record, through the distributed ledger, with the current geolocation data stored in the second record and with the initial geolocation data stored in the first record. {[0067] “For example, for a block [record] 402 that includes a plurality of transactions 402a, 402b, and up to 402c, a device in the distributed network may increment a nonce in the block 402 until a value is found that gives a hash [hash value] of the block 402 the required number of zero bits. The device may then ‘chain’ [logically links] the block 402 to the previous block 404 (which may have been ‘chained’ to a previous block, not illustrated, in the same manner).”; [0015] “The transfer of the tokens to the wallet associated with the first entity causes a new transaction block to be recorded in a product blockchain structure (also referred to as a ‘blockchain’ or a ‘ledger’).”}
Chen does not teach, however Cantrell teaches:
upon receiving a request to move the physical asset to a current geolocation: {[0004] “An exemplary method which can be performed using concepts disclosed herein can include: receiving, at a processor, a notification that a package is near a sensor having a sensor type;”; [0044] “Exemplary sensors can include one or more of a… GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver”}
comparing the initial geolocation at which the physical asset has been established, as indicated by the initial geolocation data stored in the decentralized chain of custody, to a geolocation provided in the request to move the physical asset; {[0004] “receiving, at the processor from a database, a blockchain record for the package, wherein the processor has access to a private key necessary to amend the blockchain record; identifying, via the processor, most recent data [initial geolocation] within the blockchain record for the sensor type; comparing, via the processor, the most recent data within the blockchain to current data produced by the sensor, to yield a comparison; identifying, via the processor and based on the comparison, a difference in the most recent data within the blockchain and the current data produced by the sensor;”}
determining the current geolocation of the physical asset; and {[0004] “identifying, via the processor and based on the comparison, a difference in the most recent data within the blockchain and the current data [current geolocation] produced by the sensor;”}
recording the move of the physical asset in the decentralized chain of custody, including storing current geolocation data describing the current geolocation in a second record of the distributed ledger, the second record also storing a hash value for the second record that logically links the second record to its previous record in the distributed ledger, thereby associating the second record, through the distributed ledger, with the initial geolocation data stored in the first record, and enabling verification of the provenance of the transactable credit in association with tracking of movement of the physical asset; {[0004] “generating, via the processor, a block comprising the difference; adding, via the processor, the block [second record] to the blockchain, to yield an updated blockchain;”}
Chen, as discussed above, teaches storing an NFT representing a physical object in a blockchain block, including location data generated by a GPS receiver. Chen does not teach updating that location data in the manner claimed. However, Cantrell teaches receiving current output of a GPS receiver, comparing it to GPS data stored in the blockchain, and storing the current GPS data in a new block of the blockchain.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the updating of Cantrell to the NFT digital twin method of Chen because it would ensure that the most up-to-date location data is available, which would aid potential purchasers in verifying that an object represented by an NFT is not counterfeit (see [0027] of Chen, cited above, discussing comparing the location of a device during a transaction to a location recently stored in the blockchain to ensure they are not far apart).
Regarding claim 3
Chen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein authorizing the transaction further comprises verifying a redemption status or use status of the transactable credit. {[0025-0026] “The product verification system may attempt to determine a token corresponding to a particular instance of a product based on the code. […] If a token is determined based on the code, the product verification system may traverse the product blockchain to access data associated with the token (e.g., the data stored in transaction blocks associated with the token). The data retrieved from the blockchain may include identities of entities that possessed the token in the past (e.g., the entities in the supply chain of the product, the manufacturer, the previous owner(s), the current owner, etc.), the content generated and added by the manufacturer and the entities in the supply chain, and other information. The product verification system may also access a product authentication history associated with the instance of the product corresponding to the token. In some embodiments, the product verification system may attempt to authenticate the instance of the product based on the data retrieved from the product blockchain, the product authentication history [use status], the device attributes of the user device, and the image of the instance of the product captured by the user device.”}
Regarding claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the transactable credit is a carbon credit or carbon offset, and wherein the physical asset is a parcel of land or one or more plants on the parcel of land.
This limitation is not given patentable weight. There is no method step. The type of physical asset represented by the transactable credit has no effect on the claimed method.
Regarding claim 5
Chen teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising registering the transactable credit in a credit transaction platform implemented, with the DLTN, using the distributed ledger. {[0015] “the product blockchain structure is generated by the product verification system and is associated with the product or products produced by the manufacturer such that any transactions (e.g., transfer of tokens) associated with instances of the product or products produced by the manufacturers will be recorded in the product blockchain structure.”}
Regarding claim 6
Chen teaches:
The method of claim 5, further comprising, prior to generating the transactable credit, verifying that another transactable credit representing establishment of the physical asset is not tracked in the credit transaction platform. {[0062] “In some embodiments, the minting module 204 may be configured to mint one token for each anticipated instance of the product.”}
Regarding claim 9
Chen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the decentralized chain of custody for indicating provenance of the transactable credit is stored directly in the distributed ledger, {[0015] “In some embodiments, the product blockchain structure is not associated with any particular product or manufacturer, and any transactions [provenance] associated with any products may be recorded in the product blockchain [distributed ledger] structure or as metadata associated with the corresponding tokens.”}
wherein the first record is a root record,
The first block in the sequential blocks of Chen (commonly referred to as a genesis block) is the root record. Chen does not explicitly teach the NFT being in the genesis block, but Chen teaches the NFT being stored in a block and therefore it is implicit that it could be in the genesis block.
wherein the transactable credit data is stored in the first record or a different record of the one or more records,
The blocks of Chen are the records, and all data is in some block.
wherein, for each given record of the one or more records after the first record, the hash value for the given record depends at least in part on the initial geolocation data, and wherein, for the second record, the hash value for the second record depends at least in part on the initial geolocation data. {[0067] “For example, for a block [record] 402 that includes a plurality of transactions 402a, 402b, and up to 402c, a device in the distributed network may increment a nonce in the block 402 until a value is found that gives a hash of the block 402 the required number of zero bits. The device may then ‘chain’ the block 402 to the previous block 404 (which may have been ‘chained’ to a previous block, not illustrated, in the same manner). When devices in the distributed network find the proof-of-work for a block, that block (e.g., block 402) is broadcast to the distributed network, and other devices in the distributed network will accept that block if all the transactions in it are valid and not already transferred (which may be determined by creating the next block using the hash of the accepted block 402).”}
Since each block contains a hash of the previous block, each hash value depends on all data previously stored in the blockchain.
Regarding claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more records includes:
a header, wherein the header includes a timestamp, the hash value for the given record, if present, and one or more of a user identifier, encryption key identifier, and data category identifier; and
payload data, wherein the payload data for the first record includes the initial geolocation data.
The above limitations are not given patentable weight because they are directed towards printed matter. The limitations are directed towards the content of data which has no functional relationship to the claimed method.
Regarding claim 11
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Regarding claim 12
See claim 4.
Regarding claims 13 and 21
Claims 13 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 6 and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1, except that claim 14 includes the following additional limitations:
upon receiving a request to authorize a second transaction involving the transactable credit, retrieving the decentralized chain of custody from the distributed ledger; and
determining whether to authorize the second transaction based on the decentralized chain of custody.
This is merely repeating the steps of Chen and performing another transaction in exactly the same way. Since Chen teaches [0015] “In some embodiments, the product blockchain structure is generated by the product verification system and is associated with the product or products produced by the manufacturer such that any transactions (e.g., transfer of tokens) associated with instances of the product or products produced by the manufacturers will be recorded in the product blockchain structure” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention there could be more than one transaction with an NFT.
Regarding claim 16
See claim 4.
Regarding claim 17
See claim 3.
Regarding claim 18
See claim 3.
Regarding claim 19
See claim 3.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cantrell as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Admitted Prior Art (Official Notice taken in 9/30/2024 non-final).
Regarding claim 8
Chen teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the client computing device is a smartphone, feature phone, or other mobile computing device, and {[0048] “In various implementations, the user device 110 may include at least one of a wireless cellular phone, wearable computing device, PC, laptop, etc.”}
The above is not given patentable weight because it has no effect on the step of receiving. However, it is taught by Chen.
Chen does not teach:
wherein the distributed ledger is a permissioned blockchain.
However, Admitted Prior Art teaches that permissioned blockchains are well-known in the art, and it would be a mere substitution of equivalents to use a permissioned blockchain in place of the blockchain of Chen, and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cantrell as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view Madhusudhan (US 20230070389 A1).
Regarding claim 7
Chen in view of Cantrell does not teach, however Madhusudhan teaches:
The method of claim 5, further comprising, upon receiving a request to generate a second transactable credit representing establishment of the physical asset in the credit transaction platform, denying the request to generate the second transactable credit. {[0059] “The NFC creation module 206 may restrict the creation of more than one NFT for an asset if it represents a physical asset, as there can be only one person who may have the physical asset.”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the restriction of Madhusudhan’s NFT “digital twin” system with Chen’s digital twin system because it would accomplish Chen’s goal of ensuring only one token exists for each instance of a product, and both are systems which use NFTs to represent physical objects so the combination would be straightforward.
Regarding claim 22
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended language. The amended independent claims include new subject matter which is not taught by the art of record. However, Cantrell has been added as a reference which teaches the newly claimed steps relating to updating the transactable credit geolocation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Eivy (US 20230114235 A1) teaches:
[0036] “It is noted that variant NFTs 122a/222 and 122b/222 are typically independent of the original NFTs upon which they are based. As a result, variant NFTs 122a/222 and 122b/222 can usually be transferred independently of those original NFTs. Nevertheless, in some use cases, smart contract 360 can tie a variant NFT to its original NFT and require that they be transferred together. Moreover, in some implementations, the original NFT may be revoked, or “burned,” and the variant NFT may be reminted as a descendent upgrade of the original. For example, where a collector owns an NFT of character A from a movie franchise, that NFT may be revoked and the collector may receive a newly minted variant NFT of character A and another character B from the same franchise.”
Padmanabhan (US 20200349142 A1) teaches:
Abstract “A method implemented by a computer system including receiving a transaction for a blockchain to update a data record persistently stored on the blockchain, the transaction specifying updated values for one or more of a plurality of data elements of the data record, and updating correlated data records separate from the blockchain in a database system to match the updated values for the data record in the blockchain.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (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 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698