DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 11/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 11/27/2025 (hereinafter “REMARKS”), with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to the rejection of the claims over the prior art of record: Fisher et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0356493; hereinafter “Fisher”) in view of Meyers et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0222490; hereinafter “Meyers”), further in view of Feng Cao (NL Patent 2029246; hereinafter “Feng Cao”), the applicant argues Fisher does not teach the elements referring to “NFT” in the claims. Nowhere in the claims does it define what an “NFT” is or what it stands for.
Fisher teaches a smart document enabled by a smart contract which operates on a blockchain network, and is referred to by a generated unique hash of the document as an identifier for it on the blockchain (¶ 0036, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0042, ¶ 0068-0069). This is directly how applicant describes an NFT as a unique identifier to mark digital data, trackable through a blockchain, and minted through smart contracts (applicant’s spec. ¶ 0003). Applicants disclose does not refer to any specific standards that bind the term to a set of requirements. Fisher’s smart document appears to functionally operate in the same manner (¶ 0034-0037). Applicant’s description of “minting an NFT” does not describe any operation beyond what is claimed (applicant’s spec. ¶ 0064, Fig. 6). Fisher citations referring to the processing/creation of the documents associated data, identifier generation, and inclusion in new blocks of the blockchain directly read on these functional limitations (¶ 0042, ¶ 0053-0055, ¶ 0061-0062, ¶ 0068-0069, Fig. 3). If applicant believes the smart document of Fisher is distinguished from their Intelligence document, then they should incorporate a limitation (e.g., functional operation or structure unique to applicant’s understanding of an NFT, and supported by the disclosure) that is distinguished from the smart document of Fisher.
Fisher teaches, with regard to the claim citations, a blockchain, as a distributed ledger, which can be public or private (¶ 0069, ¶ 0008). Furthermore, receiving a document which includes content and metadata which can be any digital file which reads on “capturing a document” (¶ 0069, ¶ 0034). Rules for access and decryption, associated with the document, are received in the metadata which reads on “capturing a set of document rules associated with the document … the document rules … an entitlement criterion” (¶ 0067, ¶ 0005, ¶ 0010). The metadata can include rules for decrypting or accessing specific portions of the smart document which reads on “a set of redaction requirements” (¶ 0066, ¶ 0067). The document being enhanced with metadata converting it to a smart document and enabled by a smart contract reads on “converting the document text to a digital document format” (¶ 0036, 0039). Generating a unique document identifier stored in a distributed ledger whereby new blocks are appended onto a current blockchain to create a most recent block which includes the document package with the document metadata which reads on “minting an NFT, the digital document format embedded in the NFT, the document rules encoded as self-actuating document rules in NFT metadata” (¶ 0055, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0068-0069, ¶ 0053-0054, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0068, ¶ 0042). Fisher further teaches of public/private keys used with the enhanced metadata payload whereby the metadata is currently encrypted and needs to be decrypted for access which reads on “the NFT and NFT metadata using public/private key encryption” (¶ 0069, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0065). New blocks are appended onto current blocks which includes the document package after the document is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as the document package and furthermore a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the document which reads on “storing the NFT in a blockchain, the storing comprising generating a unique hash for the NFT and NFT metadata based on a position of the NFT in the blockchain” (¶ 0054, ¶ 0068-0070). Fisher also teaches a user identifier is verified and metadata is distributed to the user based on access rules whereby a user with their identifier can access specific data relating to documents which reads on “transmitting a token identifier to the document owner” (¶ 0072).
Furthermore, with regard to independent claim 15, applicant argues Housser does not disclose “a user interface”. However, Housser teaches a set of inputs available to a smart contract via a graphical interface via which the user can interact with and update data on the blockchain (¶ 0042, ¶ 0045, Fig. 3). The rejection only relies on Housser to disclose a GUI input. Fisher teaches receiving input of a document and document rules (¶ 0067,¶ 0034, ¶ 0042, ¶ 0056, ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0074). Therefore, the combination teaches “a user interface configured to receive input of a document and a set of document rules from a document owner”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues the prior art of record applied in the rejections of the dependent claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of Fisher in view of Meyers in view of Feng Cao, and therefore distinguish over the prior art for the same reasons. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Fisher in view of Meyers in view of Feng Cao, and Housser in the case of claim 15, disclose all the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are not persuasive and the respective rejections are maintained.
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 1-2, 4, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0356493; hereinafter “Fisher”) in view of Meyers et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0222490; hereinafter “Meyers”), further in view of Feng Cao (NL Patent 2029246; hereinafter “Feng Cao”).
As per claim 1: Fisher discloses a method for NFT-based self-actuating document management, the method comprising, at a private blockchain network (The distributed ledger can be a public or private ledger [¶ 0069]):
capturing a document (a document is received which includes content and metadata [¶ 0067]; a document can be any digital file … containing data in any form and residing on any medium refers to the ability of an owner of the document to control which data in the document is disclosed, to whom it is disclosed, when it is disclosed [¶ 0034]);
capturing a set of document rules associated with the document (a document is received which includes content and metadata. Further, the metadata may include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like [¶ 0067]), the document rules [comprising a purge date], an entitlement criterion (the document metadata including one or more rules each associated with respective user identifiers [¶ 0005, ¶ 0010]; the metadata may include rules allowing for particular users, identified by a respective public key, to decrypt certain portions of the smart document content after certain events have occurred [¶ 0067]), and a set of redaction requirements (metadata 456 can include … various access levels for decrypting predetermined portions of a respective associated smart document based on user defined rules stored within the exposed metadata 456 [¶ 0066, Examiner’s Note: rules for decrypting portions of the smart document]; decryption rules [¶ 0067]);
converting the document text to a digital document format (A document that has been modified with enhanced metadata, as described above, can become a “smart document” and may further by enabled by a smart contract [¶ 0036, Examiner’s Note: document modified with enhanced metadata]; Historical tracking and records may be included within a document itself via the enhanced metadata by including within the enhanced metadata, for example, a hash tree of a complete entire history (data, authorial, temporal, etc.) of the respective document … a respective owner of the document can adjust metadata settings to disclose all, some or none of the document to third parties [¶ 0039]);
minting an NFT (unique document identifier … unique document identifier is stored in a distributed ledger [abstract, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0068-0069, Examiner’s Note: each document/smart document with a unique identifier]; the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current blockchain 120 to create a most recent block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to preceding blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]; Standard metadata 306 can include authorship, time, version, location, and other information associated with the documents contents 318 and/or creation of the smart document [¶ 0061]; a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068]), the digital document format embedded in the NFT (document package [¶ 0069]; The enhanced metadata 308 includes an identifier 310, API endpoints 312, enhanced application execution data 314, and an embedded data store 316 [¶ 0062]; once a document is signed, the document may be automatically hashed and uploaded, along with user determined metadata, to a distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain, etc.) [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]; The smart document 304 includes standard metadata 306, document contents 318, and enhanced metadata 308 … Documents content 318 may include primary operative document data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, pixel/image information, literal text strings, comma-separated values, and the like [¶ 0061]; The document packages 114 typically represent a unique document version 112, such as an updated document and access schema (e.g., enhanced metadata) that may additionally include identifiers (e.g., document identifier hashes) for earlier document versions [¶ 0053-0054]), the document rules encoded as self-actuating document rules in NFT metadata (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [¶ 0064]; the unique document identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package [¶ 0069]);
[encrypting] the NFT and NFT metadata using public/private key encryption (document package [¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted]);
storing the NFT in a blockchain (the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to precenting blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]; uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package [¶ 0069]), the storing comprising generating a unique hash for the NFT and NFT metadata based on a position of the NFT in the blockchain (a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068]; the unique identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network [¶ 0069]; the unique document identifier and the metadata may be stored directly within the smart document (e.g., embedded) [¶ 0070]; linking the most recent block 122 to precenting blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]); and
transmitting a token identifier to the document owner (the user identifier is verified via an identity ledger and a portion of the metadata is distributed based on the verified user identifier and access rules. For example, the access rules may provide for a decryption key for specific portions of the content of a smart document for specific users. As a result, the decryption key, stored in the metadata along with the access rules, can be distributed to the user upon successful verification of the user identifier [¶ 0072]).
Fisher discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose comprising a purge date. However, Meyers teaches comprising a purge date (The new NFT can then be set via the smart contract to automatically expire (e.g. be deleted from the wallet, destroyed or otherwise disabled), when the restrictions are met [¶ 0092]). Fisher and Meyers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Meyers to the system of Fisher in order to enable temporary use of the NFT given operable restrictions. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Fisher in view of Meyers discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose encrypting the NFT and NFT metadata using public/private key encryption. However, Feng Cao teaches encrypting the NFT and NFT metadata using public/private key encryption (uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [¶ 0075]). Fisher in view of Meyers and Feng Cao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers in view of Feng Cao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Feng Cao to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers in order to improve the security of digital products on the blockchain (¶ 0006). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 2: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher discloses further comprising: receiving a request from a user at the blockchain network to access the document (a user request is received for the metadata and includes a user identifier and the unique document identifier … the user request may be an access request [¶ 0071]; all nodes 132 in the network 130 of nodes can receive updates to the blockchain 100 from the network [¶ 0053]; a user device 302 communicates with a blockchain network 320 managing blockchain 100 [¶ 0059]; The identifier 310 may be the hash value of the smart document 304 … and may then be stored within the smart document and used for retrieving and/or validating the document from blockchain network 320 [¶ 0062]); and requiring an entitlement criterion based on the self-actuating document rules encoded in the NFT metadata (the user identifier is verified via an identity ledger and a portion of the metadata is distributed based on the verified user identifier and access rules… for example, the access rules may provide for a decryption key for specific portions of the content of a smart document for specific users … As a result, the decryption key, stored in the metadata along with the access rules, can be distributed to the user upon successful verification of the user identifier [¶ 0072]).
As per claim 4: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher and Meyers disclose further comprising, in response to reaching a predetermined calendar date (After the Collection NFT is created, or upon the expiration of some predetermined time period (such as 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, a day, etc.) the micro-loaned NFT(s) are returned expire, deleted or destroyed [Meyers ¶ 0091]; The new NFT can then be set via the smart contract to automatically expire (e.g. be deleted from the wallet, destroyed or otherwise disabled), when the restrictions are met [Meyers ¶ 0092]), purging the document from the blockchain network based on the self-actuating document rules encoded in the NFT metadata (The new NFT can then be set via the smart contract to automatically expire (e.g. be deleted from the wallet, destroyed or otherwise disabled), when the restrictions are met [Meyers ¶ 0092]; Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]; a document is received which includes content and metadata. Further, the metadata may include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0067]).
As per claim 9: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Fisher discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions which (These instructions may be read into main memory 161 from another machine-readable medium, such as a storage device [¶ 0076]; non-volatile media … optical or magnetic disks [¶ 0077]), when executed by a processor on a computer system (Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in main memory 616 may cause processors 602-606 to perform the process steps described herein [¶ 0076]), perform a method for NFT-based intelligent document management (A document that has been modified with enhanced metadata, as described above, can become a “smart document” and may further by enabled by a smart contract [¶ 0036, Examiner’s Note: document modified with enhanced metadata]; unique document identifier … unique document identifier is stored in a distributed ledger [abstract, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0068-0069, Examiner’s Note: each document/smart document with a unique identifier]), the method comprising, at a private blockchain network (The distributed ledger can be a public or private ledger [¶ 0069]): The limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 12: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 14: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to claim 4 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Meyers, further in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2025/0156948; hereinafter “Smith”).
As per claim 3: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher discloses further comprising: receiving a request from a user at the blockchain network to access the document (a user request is received for the metadata and includes a user identifier and the unique document identifier … the user request may be an access request [¶ 0071]; all nodes 132 in the network 130 of nodes can receive updates to the blockchain 100 from the network [¶ 0053]; a user device 302 communicates with a blockchain network 320 managing blockchain 100 [¶ 0059]; The identifier 310 may be the hash value of the smart document 304 … and may then be stored within the smart document and used for retrieving and/or validating the document from blockchain network 320 [¶ 0062]); and [redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user] based on the self-actuating document rules encoded in the NFT metadata (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]).
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user. However, Smith teaches redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user (from the received request, data identifying the ledger-based NFT 138 and/or the parcel of real estate, and that generate the aggregated data characterizing ledger-based NFT 138 and/or the parcel of real estate across the one or more temporal intervals. The aggregate data may include, but is not limited to, all prior trade prices (with Oracle Data Safe™ feeds from a certified NFT marketplace associated with registry system 130 or from other, third-party NFT marketplaces), a legal description of the parcel of real estate, a legal description of the real world asset, non-changeable pictures of parcel of real estate, and in some instances, redacted title and other ownership and information documents, the third-party administrator's TPA history of funding, and maintenance amounts spent (i.e. taxes paid, homeowners association (HOA) payments, amount within account, “replenishment,” or “NFT extension payments date”), appraisals, a property inspection report (e.g., as updated and provisioned by TPA system 160), and/or a link to a three-dimensional virtual-reality assets in a metaverse or other digital environment. Executed registry engine 152 may perform operations that provision the elements of aggregated data across communications network 120 to client device 102, and based on a receipt of the aggregated data, executed wallet application 106 may programmatically trigger an execution of web browser 108, which may render portions of the aggregated data within one or more screens of a “certified” and inviolate protected information website page (e.g., via display unit 109A) [¶ 0055]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Smith are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Smith to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to redact information not owned by the user viewing the document data thus providing improved security. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 13: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Meyers, further in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0177490; hereinafter “Moore”).
As per claim 5: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher and Feng Cao disclose further comprising encrypting the NFT and the NFT metadata (document package [Fisher ¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [Fisher ¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [Fisher ¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted]; uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [Feng Cao ¶ 0075]) [using advanced encryption standard].
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose using advanced encryption standard. However, Moore teaches using advanced encryption standard (In action 3, the server 1008 validates the credentials of the creator to determine whether the creator is a genuine user of the NFT generation application and platform. The server 1008 can be a cloud server or local to the NFT creator device 1004. In some embodiments, the server 1008 and NFT creator device 1004 are the same computer device. The server 1008 encrypts the NFT template and saves it in a database. The database can be local to the server 1008 or remote to the server 1008, such as a cloud database. In some embodiments, the encryption is performed using asymmetric encryption, public-key encryption schemes, symmetric-key schemes, triple DES Encryption, RSA encryption, Advanced Encryption Standards (AES), Twofish encryption algorithm, Blowfish encryption algorithm, IDEA encryption algorithm, MD5 encryption algorithm, HMAC encryption algorithm, any other encryption method, or a combination thereof [¶ 0106, Examiner’s Note: advanced encryption standards]; The encryption performed ensures fakes and duplicates of the NFT template are prevented from being passed by anyone other than the creator. In some embodiments, the server encrypts the data and includes a shared secret that is verified when the NFT template is decrypted by the application running on the NFT collector device once the NFT collector device receives the NFT template via NFC. Only NFT templates associated with a valid shared secret are accepted by the collector application. Later when the template is uploaded to the server via the collector application, it is decrypted again to ensure that the template is both valid and was collected via an in-person NFC tap or touch. The process of validating keys ensures fake duplicates of the NFT 904 and metadata are not accepted and passed into the blockchain [¶ 0107]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Moore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Moore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Moore to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to ensure the NFT is valid and secured (¶ 0106-0107). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 6: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher and Feng Cao disclose further comprising encrypting the NFT and the NFT metadata using (document package [Fisher ¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [Fisher ¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [Fisher ¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted]; uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [Feng Cao ¶ 0075]) [a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers].
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers. However, Moore teaches a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers (In action 3, the server 1008 validates the credentials of the creator to determine whether the creator is a genuine user of the NFT generation application and platform. The server 1008 can be a cloud server or local to the NFT creator device 1004. In some embodiments, the server 1008 and NFT creator device 1004 are the same computer device. The server 1008 encrypts the NFT template and saves it in a database. The database can be local to the server 1008 or remote to the server 1008, such as a cloud database. In some embodiments, the encryption is performed using asymmetric encryption, public-key encryption schemes, symmetric-key schemes, triple DES Encryption, RSA encryption, Advanced Encryption Standards (AES), Twofish encryption algorithm, Blowfish encryption algorithm, IDEA encryption algorithm, MD5 encryption algorithm, HMAC encryption algorithm, any other encryption method, or a combination thereof [¶ 0106, Examiner’s Note: public-key encryption schemes, symmetric-key schemes, a combination thereof]; The encryption performed ensures fakes and duplicates of the NFT template are prevented from being passed by anyone other than the creator. In some embodiments, the server encrypts the data and includes a shared secret that is verified when the NFT template is decrypted by the application running on the NFT collector device once the NFT collector device receives the NFT template via NFC. Only NFT templates associated with a valid shared secret are accepted by the collector application. Later when the template is uploaded to the server via the collector application, it is decrypted again to ensure that the template is both valid and was collected via an in-person NFC tap or touch. The process of validating keys ensures fake duplicates of the NFT 904 and metadata are not accepted and passed into the blockchain [¶ 0107]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Moore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Moore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Moore to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to ensure the NFT is valid and secured (¶ 0106-0107). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Meyers, further in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Housser et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0277275; hereinafter “Housser”).
As per claim 7: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Fisher disclose further comprising, [receiving a selection of] a self-actuating document rule (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]; the processors 602-606 and for controlling cursor movement on the display device [¶ 0074]) [at a user interface].
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose receiving a selection of a self-actuating document rule at a user interface. However, Housser teaches receiving a selection of a self-actuating document rule at a user interface (The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]; In some embodiments, each above entity has access to a set of inputs to the smart contract via a graphic user interface [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Housser are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Housser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Housser to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to manage ownership over tokens from an administrator of the tokens (¶ 0045). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 8: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, Fisher and Housser disclose further comprising receiving a modification of a selected self-actuating document rule (The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [Housser ¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]; Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]) at the user interface (In some embodiments, each above entity has access to a set of inputs to the smart contract via a graphic user interface [Housser ¶ 0042, Fig. 3]; the processors 602-606 and for controlling cursor movement on the display device [¶ 0074]).
As per claim 10: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Fisher discloses further comprising, [at a user interface]: receiving selection of a document rule (a document is received which includes content and metadata. Further, the metadata may include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0067]; the document metadata including one or more rules each associated with respective user identifiers [¶ 0005, ¶ 0010]; the metadata may include rules allowing for particular users, identified by a respective public key, to decrypt certain portions of the smart document content after certain events have occurred [¶ 0067]; the processors 602-606 and for controlling cursor movement on the display device [¶ 0074]); and receiving a request to mint an NFT comprising the selected document rule (the metadata may include access rules … [¶ 0067]; the unique document identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package … stored alongside other paired unique document identifiers (e.g. associated with other smart documents) and metadata portions in a single block [¶ 0069]; the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current blockchain 120 to create a most recent block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to preceding blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]).
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose at a user interface. However, Housser teaches at a user interface (The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]; In some embodiments, each above entity has access to a set of inputs to the smart contract via a graphic user interface [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Housser are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Housser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Housser to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to manage ownership over tokens from an administrator of the tokens (¶ 0045). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 11: Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao teach all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Fisher discloses further comprising, [at a user interface]: receiving [modification] of a selectable document rule (a document is received which includes content and metadata. Further, the metadata may include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0067]; the document metadata including one or more rules each associated with respective user identifiers [¶ 0005, ¶ 0010]; the metadata may include rules allowing for particular users, identified by a respective public key, to decrypt certain portions of the smart document content after certain events have occurred [¶ 0067]; the processors 602-606 and for controlling cursor movement on the display device [¶ 0074]); and receiving a request to mint an NFT comprising [the modified] document rule (the metadata may include access rules … [¶ 0067]; the unique document identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package … stored alongside other paired unique document identifiers (e.g. associated with other smart documents) and metadata portions in a single block [¶ 0069]; the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current blockchain 120 to create a most recent block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to preceding blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]).
Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose at a user interface: receiving modification of a selectable document rule; the modified document rule. However, Housser teaches at a user interface: receiving modification of a selectable document rule (The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]; In some embodiments, each above entity has access to a set of inputs to the smart contract via a graphic user interface [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]); the modified document rule (The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]). Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao and Housser are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in view of Housser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Housser to the system of Fisher in view of Meyers further in view of Feng Cao in order to manage ownership over tokens from an administrator of the token (¶ 0045). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Housser.
As per claim 15: Fisher discloses a system for NFT-based intelligent document protocols, the system comprising (A document that has been modified with enhanced metadata, as described above, can become a “smart document” and may further by enabled by a smart contract [¶ 0036, Examiner’s Note: document modified with enhanced metadata]):
[a user interface] configured to receive input of a document and a set of document rules from a document owner (a document is received which includes content and metadata [¶ 0067]; a document can be any digital file … containing data in any form and residing on any medium refers to the ability of an owner of the document to control which data in the document is disclosed, to whom it is disclosed, when it is disclosed [¶ 0034]; once a document is signed, the document may be automatically hashed and uploaded, along with user determined metadata, to a distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain) [¶ 0042, Examiner’s Note: user is the owner]; a document can be any digital file … an owner of the document to control which data in the document is disclosed [¶ 0034, Examiner’s Note: owner of document]; a different schema as defined by an associated user or document owner [¶ 0056]; The user device 302 accesses the smart document 304, which may be retrieved from the document management system 322. The smart document includes standard metadata 306, document contents 318, and enhanced metadata 308 [¶ 0061]; a user device 302 communicates with a blockchain network 320 managing blockchain 100 [¶ 0059]; the processors 602-606 and for controlling cursor movement on the display device [¶ 0074]);
a blockchain network configured to (the distributed ledger includes a blockchain network [¶ 0008, ¶ 0069, Fig. 3]):
convert the document to a digital document format (A document that has been modified with enhanced metadata, as described above, can become a “smart document” and may further by enabled by a smart contract [¶ 0036, Examiner’s Note: document modified with enhanced metadata]; Historical tracking and records may be included within a document itself via the enhanced metadata by including within the enhanced metadata, for example, a hash tree of a complete entire history (data, authorial, temporal, etc.) of the respective document … a respective owner of the document can adjust metadata settings to disclose all, some or none of the document to third parties [¶ 0039]);
parse the document rules (a document is received which includes content and metadata … the metadata my include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like. [¶ 0067]);
mint an NFT comprising smart contract logic (unique document identifier … unique document identifier is stored in a distributed ledger [abstract, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0068-0069, Examiner’s Note: each document/smart document with a unique identifier]; the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current blockchain 120 to create a most recent block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to preceding blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]; Standard metadata 306 can include authorship, time, version, location, and other information associated with the documents contents 318 and/or creation of the smart document [¶ 0061]; a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068]; document package [¶ 0069]; The enhanced metadata 308 includes an identifier 310, API endpoints 312, enhanced application execution data 314, and an embedded data store 316 [¶ 0062]; once a document is signed, the document may be automatically hashed and uploaded, along with user determined metadata, to a distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain, etc.) [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]; The smart document 304 includes standard metadata 306, document contents 318, and enhanced metadata 308 … Documents content 318 may include primary operative document data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, pixel/image information, literal text strings, comma-separated values, and the like [¶ 0061]; The document packages 114 typically represent a unique document version 112, such as an updated document and access schema (e.g., enhanced metadata) that may additionally include identifiers (e.g., document identifier hashes) for earlier document versions [¶ 0053-0054, Fig. 3]), the digital document embedded in the NFT and the document rules encoded in self-actuating NFT metadata (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [¶ 0064]; the unique document identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package [¶ 0069]);
[encrypt] the NFT and the NFT metadata (document package [¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted]);
store the NFT in the blockchain (the new block 118 can then be appended onto a current block 122, which includes the document packages 114 in the block contents 106 as well as an appropriate header 104 linking the most recent block 122 to precenting blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]; uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network, as a document package [¶ 0069]), the storing comprising generating a unique hash for the NFT and NFT metadata based on a position of the NFT in the blockchain (a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068]; the unique identifier and a portion of the metadata is uploaded to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain network [¶ 0069]; the unique document identifier and the metadata may be stored directly within the smart document (e.g., embedded) [¶ 0070]; linking the most recent block 122 to precenting blocks of the blockchain 100 [¶ 0054]); and
transmit a token identifier to the document owner (the user identifier is verified via an identity ledger and a portion of the metadata is distributed based on the verified user identifier and access rules. For example, the access rules may provide for a decryption key for specific portions of the content of a smart document for specific users. As a result, the decryption key, stored in the metadata along with the access rules, can be distributed to the user upon successful verification of the user identifier [¶ 0072]).
Fisher discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose encrypt the NFT and the NFT metadata. However, Feng Cao teaches encrypt the NFT and the NFT metadata (uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [¶ 0075]). Fisher and Feng Cao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Feng Cao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Feng Cao to the system of Fisher in order to improve the security of digital products on the blockchain (¶ 0006). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Fisher in view of Feng Cao discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a user interface. However, Housser teaches a user interface (In some embodiments, each above entity has access to a set of inputs to the smart contract via a graphic user interface [¶ 0042, Fig. 3]; The administrative user 304, via the first set of inputs 318 is able to revoke or reissue tokens that are owned by a given user. Where a user loses their private key and needs a new private key, the administrative user can revert a given transfer and take control of the tokens which may in turn be issued to a new base cryptocurrency address. The administrative user is further able to modify criteria used to regulate secondary transfers of the token. The smart contract sample criteria that may be part of the smart contract include: existence of the a given user's public address on the allowlist, total number investors not exceeded, tokens current available, vesting date reached, given investor does not control greater than a specified amount of total tokens. Via inputs 318 and 322, the administrative user modifies the criteria either adjusting variables or adding/subtracting criteria the smart contract applies [¶ 0045, Examiner’s Note: criteria for a smart contract input by user]). Fisher in view of Feng Cao and Housser are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Housser to the system of Fisher in view of Feng Cao in order to manage ownership over tokens from an administrator of the tokens (¶ 0045). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 16: Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Fisher and Feng Cao disclose the NFT and NFT metadata encrypted using public/private key encryption prior to generating the hash (document package [Fisher ¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [Fisher ¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [fisher ¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted]; a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068, Examiner’s Note: metadata used as input to hashing so it’s encrypted prior to the hash]; uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [Feng Cao ¶ 0075]).
As per claim 18: Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Fisher discloses the blockchain network further configured to: receive a request from a user to access the document (a user request is received for the metadata and includes a user identifier and the unique document identifier … the user request may be an access request [¶ 0071]; all nodes 132 in the network 130 of nodes can receive updates to the blockchain 100 from the network [¶ 0053]; a user device 302 communicates with a blockchain network 320 managing blockchain 100 [¶ 0059]; The identifier 310 may be the hash value of the smart document 304 … and may then be stored within the smart document and used for retrieving and/or validating the document from blockchain network 320 [¶ 0062]); and require an entitlement criterion prior to access based on the document rules encoded in the self-actuating NFT metadata (the user identifier is verified via an identity ledger and a portion of the metadata is distributed based on the verified user identifier and access rules… for example, the access rules may provide for a decryption key for specific portions of the content of a smart document for specific users … As a result, the decryption key, stored in the metadata along with the access rules, can be distributed to the user upon successful verification of the user identifier [¶ 0072]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Housser, further in view of Moore.
As per claim 17: Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Fisher and Feng Cao disclose the NFT and the NFT metadata encrypted using [a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers] prior to generating the hash (document package [Fisher ¶ 0069, Fig. 3]; public and private key pairs of an asymmetric encryption, a private key corresponding to the public key … The associated decryption key of the associated may itself be encrypted with the public key of the associated user. In effect, the user may then use the respective private key to decrypt the encryption key stored in the EMDP [Fisher ¶ 0058]; an enhanced metadata payload (“EMDP”) [fisher ¶ 0055]; The embedded data store 316 may store various encrypted data such as, for example and without imputing limitation, a document history, rules, access control lists, field and/or content decryption keys, signatures, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0065, Examiner’s Note: metadata encrypted, metadata used as input to hashing to encrypted prior to the hash]; a unique document identifier is generated by hashing the received document content and metadata and the identifier is associated with the received document [¶ 0068, Examiner’s Note: metadata used as input to hashing so it’s encrypted prior to the hash]; uploading the original file of the digital product, encrypting the uploaded original file of the digital product through the data public key to create encrypted data, where the encrypted data is used as NFT metadata, and writing the data private key into the block chain with the encrypted data as a key, and obtaining the NFT code, where the NFT code is the address of the digital product created based on the block chain [Feng Cao ¶ 0075]).
Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers. However, Moore teaches a combination of symmetric and asymmetric encryption layers (In action 3, the server 1008 validates the credentials of the creator to determine whether the creator is a genuine user of the NFT generation application and platform. The server 1008 can be a cloud server or local to the NFT creator device 1004. In some embodiments, the server 1008 and NFT creator device 1004 are the same computer device. The server 1008 encrypts the NFT template and saves it in a database. The database can be local to the server 1008 or remote to the server 1008, such as a cloud database. In some embodiments, the encryption is performed using asymmetric encryption, public-key encryption schemes, symmetric-key schemes, triple DES Encryption, RSA encryption, Advanced Encryption Standards (AES), Twofish encryption algorithm, Blowfish encryption algorithm, IDEA encryption algorithm, MD5 encryption algorithm, HMAC encryption algorithm, any other encryption method, or a combination thereof [¶ 0106, Examiner’s Note: public-key encryption schemes, symmetric-key schemes, a combination thereof]; The encryption performed ensures fakes and duplicates of the NFT template are prevented from being passed by anyone other than the creator. In some embodiments, the server encrypts the data and includes a shared secret that is verified when the NFT template is decrypted by the application running on the NFT collector device once the NFT collector device receives the NFT template via NFC. Only NFT templates associated with a valid shared secret are accepted by the collector application. Later when the template is uploaded to the server via the collector application, it is decrypted again to ensure that the template is both valid and was collected via an in-person NFC tap or touch. The process of validating keys ensures fake duplicates of the NFT 904 and metadata are not accepted and passed into the blockchain [¶ 0107]). Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser and Moore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser further in view of Moore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Moore to the system of Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser in order to ensure the NFT is valid and secured (¶ 0106-0107). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Housser, further in view of Smith.
As per claim 19: Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Fisher discloses the blockchain network further configured to: receive a request from a user to access the document (a user request is received for the metadata and includes a user identifier and the unique document identifier … the user request may be an access request [¶ 0071]; all nodes 132 in the network 130 of nodes can receive updates to the blockchain 100 from the network [¶ 0053]; a user device 302 communicates with a blockchain network 320 managing blockchain 100 [¶ 0059]; The identifier 310 may be the hash value of the smart document 304 … and may then be stored within the smart document and used for retrieving and/or validating the document from blockchain network 320 [¶ 0062]); and [redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user] based on the document rules encoded in the self-actuating NFT metadata (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]).
Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user. However, Smith teaches redacting a portion of the document before displaying the document to the user (from the received request, data identifying the ledger-based NFT 138 and/or the parcel of real estate, and that generate the aggregated data characterizing ledger-based NFT 138 and/or the parcel of real estate across the one or more temporal intervals. The aggregate data may include, but is not limited to, all prior trade prices (with Oracle Data Safe™ feeds from a certified NFT marketplace associated with registry system 130 or from other, third-party NFT marketplaces), a legal description of the parcel of real estate, a legal description of the real world asset, non-changeable pictures of parcel of real estate, and in some instances, redacted title and other ownership and information documents, the third-party administrator's TPA history of funding, and maintenance amounts spent (i.e. taxes paid, homeowners association (HOA) payments, amount within account, “replenishment,” or “NFT extension payments date”), appraisals, a property inspection report (e.g., as updated and provisioned by TPA system 160), and/or a link to a three-dimensional virtual-reality assets in a metaverse or other digital environment. Executed registry engine 152 may perform operations that provision the elements of aggregated data across communications network 120 to client device 102, and based on a receipt of the aggregated data, executed wallet application 106 may programmatically trigger an execution of web browser 108, which may render portions of the aggregated data within one or more screens of a “certified” and inviolate protected information website page (e.g., via display unit 109A) [¶ 0055]). Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser and Smith are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser further in view of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Smith to the system of Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser in order to redact information not owned by the user viewing the document data thus providing improved security. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Feng Cao, further in view of Housser, further in view of Meyers.
As per claim 20: Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser teach all the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Fisher discloses the blockchain network further configured to, [in response to reaching a predetermined calendar date, purge the document from the blockchain network], based on the document rules encoded in the self-actuating NFT metadata (Enhanced application execution data 314 may include executable code and/or code execution elements for performing customized actions by the smart document 304 which may be defined by a user (e.g., during creation of the smart document 304 at document creation). For example, functional programming concepts known by those of ordinary skill in the art can be used with the benefit of this disclosure to produce enhanced application execution data 314 that may include both rules for code execution and code to be executed by the rules to perform specified tasks [Fisher ¶ 0064]; a document is received which includes content and metadata. Further, the metadata may include access rules such as, for example and without imputing limitation, access control lists, decryption rules, and the like [Fisher ¶ 0067]).
Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose in response to reaching a predetermined calendar date, purge the document from the blockchain network. However, Meyers teaches in response to reaching a predetermined calendar date, purge the document from the blockchain network (After the Collection NFT is created, or upon the expiration of some predetermined time period (such as 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, a day, etc.) the micro-loaned NFT(s) are returned expire, deleted or destroyed [Meyers ¶ 0091]; The new NFT can then be set via the smart contract to automatically expire (e.g. be deleted from the wallet, destroyed or otherwise disabled), when the restrictions are met [Meyers ¶ 0092]). Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser and Meyers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain. Therefore, based on Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser in view of Meyers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Meyers to the system of Fisher in view of Feng Cao further in view of Housser in order to enable temporary use of the NFT given operable restrictions. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P MOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-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, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/JAMES P MOLES/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494