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 .
Status of Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 12/16/2025. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15 are currently amended. Claims 3, 10, and 16 are currently cancelled and no longer in consideration. Therefore, Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Priority
The earliest filing date on record is 06/08/2023, which is the filing date of the present nonprovisional application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-7: A system for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
Claims 8-13: A computer program product for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to perform the steps of:
Claims 14-20: A computer-implemented method for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Claims 1-7 recite a system with hardware components therefore the claims are apparatus claims which falls under the potentially eligible subject matter category “machine.” Claims 8-13 recite a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls under machine or manufacture. Claims 14-20 recite a computer-implemented method which falls under process. Therefore, all the claims fall under at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2. (Step 1: Yes)
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 8, and 14 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
-Claim 1: A system for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
Claim 8: A computer program product for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to perform the steps of:
Claim 14: A computer-implemented method for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
-Claims 1, 8, and 14: receiving, from a user computing device, an origination data record comprising forensic data associated with origination of a resource, wherein the origination data record is digitally signed using a cryptographic private key associated with a first user;
continuously receiving location information from a transmitter associated with the resource, wherein the transmitter is coupled to the resource;
receiving, from the user computing device, an event data record comprising event-related data associated with a change in a status of the resource;
appending the origination data record, the location information, and the event data record to a distributed data register, wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token;
based on analyzing, using an artificial intelligence engine, the origination data record, the location information, and the event data record, identifying one or more anomalies associated with the resource, wherein identifying the one or more anomalies comprises executing an integrity validation check on an article of digital evidence,
wherein the integrity validation check comprises: generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence;
comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record;
based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted;
and
transmitting an alert to one or more computing devices, the alert comprising information about the one or more anomalies associated with the resource.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 8, and 14 recite an abstract idea under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the claims recite commercial or legal interactions, as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The instant claims apply to this category because when removing additional elements, the words in bold describe legal obligations with the steps of “receiving a record of forensic data, tracking the location of the record, signing the record to validate it, recording the events related to the record, storing it on a ledger, identifying any anomalous behavior, and outputting an alert indicating the anomaly.” These steps recite the process of monitoring forensic evidence in such generality that is no more than a set of instructions to comply with legal obligations of managing evidence, especially the steps of a user signing the data record to indicate its validity, monitoring individuals interactions with the evidence, and alerting a user to indicate an anomaly.
The previously amended steps of the integrity validation check also recite more of the same abstract idea since it merely recites comparing values between the original hash value and the validation hash output to see if any changes have been made to the file. This is part of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because it is merely data processing steps towards performing the legal obligation of authenticating evidence. Such steps describe “certain methods of organizing human activity” since they are instructions to perform a legal or commercial interaction.
Furthermore, the current amendments merely require location transmission coupling to a resource, the event-related data to be associated with a change in a status of a resource, and storing the origination data record in a particular form. Even with such amendments, the claims still at least recite the same abstract idea of monitoring forensic evidence with such generality that it is no more than a set of instructions for an individual to perform. Even when continuous updating of data, the steps are still recited in a manner that allows for an individual to record such changes, especially when considering the limitations in bold only.
The examiner notes that for purposes of compact prosecution and without admission that the steps provide more than data analysis and evaluation corresponding to the abstract idea, the previously amended steps of wherein identifying the one or more anomalies comprises executing an integrity validation check on an article of digital evidence, wherein the integrity validation check comprises: generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence; comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted; have also been considered as if they were additional elements in the Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims include the following additional elements:
(a)-digital forensics data in claims 1, 8, 14
(b)-processing device in claim 1
(c)-non-transitory computer readable storage medium (NTCRM) in claims 8
(d)-computer implemented method in claim 14
(e)-digitally signed in claims 1, 8, 14
(f)-transmitter coupled to the resource; in claims 1, 8, 14
(g)-computing device in claims 1, 8, 14
(h)- artificial intelligence engine in claims 1, 8, 14
(i) – distributed data register in claims 1, 8, 14
(j) – digital evidence; (generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence; comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted;) in claims 1, 8, 14
(k) – wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token in claims 1, 8, 14
The additional elements (a)-(h) are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception using generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case the abstract idea of “receiving a record of forensic data, tracking the location of the record, signing the record to validate it, recording the events related to the record, storing it on a ledger, identifying any anomalous behavior, and outputting an alert indicating the anomaly” is being performed on generic computing devices such as a processing device, an NTCRM, a computer, transmitter coupled to the resource, and an engine. It is made clear in the specification in at least [0060-0061] that the computing infrastructure is made up of generic computing devices or systems. Even when considering the amendments which specify that the transmitter is “coupled” to the resource, this is still recited broadly enough such that it is no more than using a device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic task (using a transmitter to transmit location data). Furthermore, it does not specify that the resource is a physical resource and that the transmitter is physically attached, only that it is coupled. Therefore, the entire computing infrastructure is a generic computing device in which the abstract idea is performed on.
Furthermore, additional elements (a), (e), (h), (i), and (k) are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” In examples (a) and (e), the abstract idea is generally linked to a digital environment. In example (i), the signature is generally linked to the environment of blockchain technology. Similarly, additional element (k), is an example of generally linking to NFTs, since it simply indicates the format in which the record is stored in, particularly as a non-fungible token, without meaningfully limiting its use on the claim.
Similarly, In example (h), the claims merely indicate that the analysis is performed on an artificial intelligence engine, which is also a general link, since it merely invokes the use of “artificial intelligence” without indicating how artificial intelligence is used to perform the intended function, thus merely generally linking the abstract idea to “artificial intelligence.”
Additional element (j), merely limits the abstract idea steps of generating a validation hash output, comparing the hash output with the hash output of the origination data record, and determine the evidence is corrupted if there is a mismatch to be performed on digital evidence which is merely an example of “apply it” or instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic computers. The fact that the evidence is “digital,” does not meaningfully limit the claims as it merely indicates that the data pertains to data on a computing device. Even when considering these steps as additional elements, they would recite insignificant extra-solution activity because they amount to necessary data gathering and data output steps towards performing the abstract idea(all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering or data output). In other words, the additional elements above does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of storing forensic evidence because adding the step of generating a validation hash output, comparing the hash output with the origination data record, and determining if there is a mismatch does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea of authenticating forensic evidence. See MPEP 2106.05(g) for other examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
“i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);”
Even when considering all of the additional elements as a combination, the combined system remains to be a generic computer, with general links to blockchain, NFT, artificial intelligence technology without specifically reciting how these additional elements interact with each other to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106.05(f), because this consideration often overlaps with the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), it is important to evaluate whether a technical improvement is reflected in the claims. However, the use of generic blockchain technology in its ordinary capacity and using a computer as a tool to perform the existing process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.” However, even when viewing the additional elements as a combination, they are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, similar to MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) examples,
“ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer
vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality,"
Therefore, since none of the additional elements provide an integration into a practical application, whether considered the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the claims recite an abstract idea without a practical application and therefore fail at step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The same additional elements set forth in the Prong 2 rejection are also analyzed for whether they recite an inventive concept, the additional elements being repeated as follows:
(a)-digital forensics data in claims 1, 8, 14
(b)-processing device in claim 1
(c)-non-transitory computer readable storage medium (NTCRM) in claims 8
(d)-computer implemented method in claim 14
(e)-digitally signed in claims 1, 8, 14
(f)-transmitter coupled to the resource; in claims 1, 8, 14
(g)-computing device in claims 1, 8, 14
(h)- artificial intelligence engine in claims 1, 8, 14
(i) – distributed data register in claims 1, 8, 14
(j) – digital evidence; (generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence; comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted;) in claims 1, 8, 14
(k) – wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token in claims 1, 8, 14
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (a-h)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept(See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are also generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, no improvements to the processing resources have been purported, because neither the claims nor the specification provide an improved computing component performing the functions. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II).
For purposes of compact prosecution, additional element (j) digital evidence, including the abstract idea (generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence; comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted) is also reanalyzed as “well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, which is described in MPEP 2106.05(d), “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” The generation of a validation hash output, comparison, and detection of a mismatch indicating that the digital evidence has been corrupted are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of digital forensics. To satisfy the factual determination, the examiner cites to a 2020 article published by Pagefreezer, written by Peter Callaghan titled, “Why Hash Values Are Crucial in Evidence Collection & Digital Forensics.” In paragraph 7 of the article, Callaghan writes “Today, data copied from electronic devices, storage media, and electronic files are ordinarily authenticated by "hash value." A hash value is a number that is often represented as a sequence of characters and is produced by an algorithm based upon the digital contents of a drive, medium, or file. If the hash values for the original and copy are different, then the copy is not identical to the original. If the hash values for the original and copy are the same, it is highly improbable that the original and copy are not identical. Thus, identical hash values for the original and copy reliably attest to the fact that they are exact duplicates.”
Since the process is described by Callaghan as “ordinarily authenticated,” this is a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element. By the time of the publication (2020), the concept of using hashes and comparison to determine if files have been altered is described in a manner that supports the conclusion that the activity has been previously known to the industry.
Furthermore, even when considering the new additional elements as amended, such as the transmitter being coupled to the resource, and the origination data record stored in the form of a non-fungible token, these additional elements still do not provide significantly more, even in combination. “Coupling” a transmitter to the resource is broad enough to encapsulate any relating of a transmitter to any resource, and indicating that the origination data record is stored as a non-fungible token is merely indicating the type/format of data being manipulated, in this case as an NFT, without meaningfully limiting its use on the claims.
Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20:
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 15 and 17, the claims merely place further limits on claim elements that have already been associated with the abstract idea in the representative claims. For example, a “resource” is limited to being an article of digital evidence(claims 2, 9, 15) or physical evidence(4, 11, 17). The same applies to the “transmitter” and “origination data record” which are simply indicating types of transmitters, and the fields of the data record. Therefore, the claims recite more of the same abstract with the same steps of “receiving a record of forensic data, tracking the location of the record, signing the record to validate it, recording the events related to the record, storing it on a ledger, identifying any anomalous behavior, and outputting an alert indicating the anomaly” The further additional elements include: digital evidence, wireless communication interface of a device, a Radio Frequency Transmitter (RF), global positioning system transmitter (GPS), and ultrawide band transmitter. The latter 3 are general links to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h) because the transmitters are merely indicating the bandwidth or protocol that they operate on. Wireless communication interface is merely a general link to the field of wireless communications and interface technology without specifically limiting its use on the invention. And as set forth in the rejection of the representative claims, a mere indication of an element as “digital” is an example of generally linking. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 further define the abstract idea by adding steps indicating on the record that the resource is being transferred, digitally signing it using a cryptographic key, receiving the event data record indicating receipt, and signing the receipt. When analyzed individually, the claims merely monitor an exchange of an item, which is an abstract idea under commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims still recite more of the same abstract idea. Other than the additional elements already addressed in the representative claims(such as digital evidence) the claims do not recite further additional elements therefore the claims are directed to an abstract without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 place further limits on the abstract idea by specifying what is included in the claim element “anomalies,” without any further additional limitations. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 7 and 20 further define the additional element “artificial intelligence engine” without placing any constraints on the abstract idea. The recitation of using “supervised learning” on historical data and storing it on a distributed ledger is a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use, in this case it is still a general link to AI and cryptography. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ken G. Tisdel (US 10896360 B2) hereinafter Tisdel, in view of Dods et al. (US 11081219 B1) hereinafter Dods, further in view of Shen et al. (US 11727795 B1) hereinafter Shen, further in view of Paripally et al. (US 11962697 B2) hereinafter Paripally.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 14:
Tisdel discloses a system with a wireless tracker attached to a system containing physical items, and a method for remotely monitoring those items using blockchain technology. Tisdel teaches:
Claim 1: A system for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 4-10] FIG. 15 depicts an exemplary tracking system 1500 (e.g., evidence tracking system). Tracking system 1500 includes management server 1504 (e.g., evidence management software), which may be a computer or computers, including a processor or processors, data storage, and any other components of a computer, computer farm, or distributed network of computers, including cloud-based systems. [Col. 13 Lines 9-12] Some exemplary types of data 901 include digital files confiscated during investigation, such as digital photographs, internet search histories, emails, and other such digital evidence.)
Claim 8: A computer program product for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to perform the steps of: (Tisdel [Col. 12 Lines 8-14] Some aspects of the present disclosure include software for use in the tracking of evidence or other items, including, but not limited to, the use of such software in conjunction with one or more of the systems, apparatus, and methods disclosed herein. The software may be stored on a non-transitory storage medium, including any of a variety of data storage such as hard drives and solid-state drives.)
Claim 14: A computer-implemented method for high integrity real time processing of digital forensics data, the computer-implemented method comprising: (Tisdel [Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 10] Some aspects of the present disclosure include tracking systems and methods that utilize blockchain software and computer technology. An exemplary method is described with reference to FIG. 13, tracking method 1300. The machine-readable identifications on the wireless tracking device and the fastener are scanned or otherwise read via machine, box 1302. For example, the machine-readable identifications may be scanned using a computer tablet or other computer or hand-held scanner or other machine capable of optically or otherwise reading the machine-readable identifications. While tracking method 1300 is described with respect to the tracking of evidence, the method may be applied in the same or substantially the same manner to track other items (e.g., corporate inventory items).)
Claims 1, 8, 14: receiving, from a user computing device, an origination data record comprising forensic data associated with origination of a resource, (Tisdel [Col. 12 Line 56- Col. 13 Line 12] Stored within the scanning device and/or within a computer or computers that is or are in data communication with the scanning device is a data file, combined data 900, that includes a plurality of data 901. In some aspects, communication between devices is performed using an Interplanetary file system (IPFS). Data 901 may be or include, for example and without limitation, any of various software-based files (e.g., .doc, .pdf, .xls, .jpg or other file types) or hash data. Each portion of data 901 may be linked to other portions of data 901 within the same combined file 900. Each combined file 900 may be associated with a single or multiple evidence bag that contains evidence. The data 901 within combined data 900 may be or include evidence (e.g., electronic/digital file evidence) or data associated with the evidence. The data 901 within combined data 900 may be or include associated case file data at the time when the evidence has been placed in the evidence bag, sealed with the device, and is ready for assignment into the case file. Evidence management software includes computer instructions to link and combine data 901 to form a hash, also referred to as “mother hash” 800. Some exemplary types of data 901 include digital files confiscated during investigation, such as digital photographs, internet search histories, emails, and other such digital evidence.) Tisdel’s “associated case file data at the time when the evidence has been placed in the evidence bag” is mapped to the origination data record, since it includes digital file evidence with information about the origin of the data.
-wherein the origination data record is digitally signed using a cryptographic private key associated with a first user; (Tisdel [Col. 13 Lines 23-36] Furthermore, hash 600 will be updated and written again to the blockchain any time a new zip tie or RFID tag is introduced, which would force an update to hash 902. Hash 902 is entered into the blockchain 904, which may be stored onto a computer. In some aspects, a private key 700 is required to access data within blockchain 904 and/or combined data 900. For example, private key 700 may be generated via login credentials or other unique identifiers. Thus, private key 700, or similar login credentials, may be used to identify, track, and/or monitor users and/or devices that are used to access and/or modify combined data 900 and/or blockchain 904. In some aspects, private key 700 is the same or is linked with identification 112 of fastener 100. [Col. 14 Lines 47-66] the officer/lab tech inserts a zip tie or other fastener into an RFID tag or other wireless tracking device and scans one of the QR codes or other machine-readable identifiers thereon, initiating authorized access to the evidence management software, optionally using a private key; (8) the software recognizes the QR Code serial number (ECM, enterprise content management) as a new item and requests the scan of the second QR code on the item not yet scanned (e.g., the zip tie or RFID tag); (9) the officer/lab tech receives a prompt/confirmation to “marry” the two items; (10) in some embodiments, confirmation is received, and a prompt is given for the case number assigned by dispatch, which the officer/lab tech enters; (11) the software updates the RFID tag with time, date, zip tie serial number, GPS location, officer/lab tech credentials (which may be captured or entered at login), case number, and any additional information required by the relevant agency; (12) the software assigns an available evidence number to the RFID tag and requests the officer/lab tech to enter item descriptions for the items being put into the bag;) This excerpt in Tisdel shows the generation of a new record for an item, including the private key of the user(user credentials captured at log in) accessing the data, which is stored on the RFID tag, and monitored on a blockchain
-continuously receiving location information from a transmitter associated with the resource, wherein the transmitter is coupled to the resource; (Tisdel [Col. 5 Lines 37-43] The signals transmitted by the wireless tracking device may be transmissions of location-based data, such as a GPS location of the wireless tracking device. As such, the location of the wireless tracking device, and anything coupled therewith, may be tracked, constantly or intermittently. [Col. 11 Lines 54-58 ]The blockchain history will track a permanent record of all wireless tracking device activity and interaction, providing a full chain of custody stored within the evidence management software. The blockchain history may track: (1) the physical location of the wireless tracking device;) Since the wireless tracking device is coupled to the evidence, then the limitation is satisfied.
-receiving, from the user computing device, an event data record comprising event-related data associated with a change in a status of the resource; (Tisdel [Col. 11 Line 54 – Col. 12 Line 3] The blockchain history will track a permanent record of all wireless tracking device activity and interaction, providing a full chain of custody stored within the evidence management software. The blockchain history may track: (1) the physical location of the wireless tracking device; (2) the identity of user accounts that access the case file in the evidence management software that is linked with the wireless tracking device; (3) the times and dates when the case file in the evidence management software, that is linked with the wireless tracking device, is accessed; (4) the devices (e.g., computer tablets or hand-held scanners) used to access the case file in the evidence management software that is linked with the wireless tracking device; and (5) any other activities where the wireless tracking device receives or transmits signals and where the case file in the evidence management software that is linked with the wireless tracking device is accessed or modified. [Col. 13 Lines 51-67] Thus, each blockchain entry 905 builds upon the previous entries into overall blockchain 904. It would be understood that the blockchain may be, for example, case based, agency based, or permissioned where any user of the software can write to the blockchain with an agency identifier that permits access to certain data on the blockchain. As such, each addition, deletion, modification, or other interaction with physical evidence or combined data 900 generates a transactional log in the blockchain 904 of entries 905, which is inalterable. As such, any doubt that someone went back at a later time and removed an item of evidence or added one without proof and documentation existing is removed. In use, exculpatory evidence will be disclosed due to the fact that, if something is not produced or is produced in an altered state, the hash values in the associated blockchain 904 will not match, indicating that something has been withheld, added, or altered after the fact.) Tisdel’s tracking of all the activities associated with the evidence is an example of an event data record. Since Tisdel’s system tracks transactions wherein each addition, deletion, modification generates a log, then the limitation of “event-related data associated with a change in a status of the resource” is satisfied because a modification or “produced in an altered state” is an example of a change in status.
-appending the origination data record, the location information, and the event data record to a distributed data register; (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 4-10] distributed network of computers, including cloud-based systems. [Col. 13 Lines 49 – Col. 14 Line 3] Additional evidence bags and/or data entered into a particular case file will result in entry into the same blockchain 904. Thus, each blockchain entry 905 builds upon the previous entries into overall blockchain 904. It would be understood that the blockchain may be, for example, case based, agency based, or permissioned where any user of the software can write to the blockchain with an agency identifier that permits access to certain data on the blockchain. As such, each addition, deletion, modification, or other interaction with physical evidence or combined data 900 generates a transactional log in the blockchain 904 of entries 905, which is inalterable… All transactions associated with the evidence and combined data will be tracked within the evidence management software using the blockchain, which may be private or public.) Tisdel stores all the transaction history on the blockchain including the physical location(location information), transaction information (event data record), and combined data(origination data record).
-based on analyzing the origination data record, the location information, and the event data record, identifying one or more anomalies associated with the resource; and (Tisdel [Col. 13 Lines 60-67] As such, any doubt that someone went back at a later time and removed an item of evidence or added one without proof and documentation existing is removed. In use, exculpatory evidence will be disclosed due to the fact that, if something is not produced or is produced in an altered state, the hash values in the associated blockchain 904 will not match, indicating that something has been withheld, added, or altered after the fact. [Col. 16 Lines 15-19] In operation, any activities associated with the creation, breach, movement, and/or destruction of a sealed bag will be annotated in the software with the last known activities stored in the RFID chip and in the management software blockchain.)
-transmitting an alert to one or more computing devices, the alert comprising information about the one or more anomalies associated with the resource. (Tisdel [Col. 16 Lines 50-59] Or, a property clerk could also answer the query without pre-authorization by answering that retrieval is required for testing; thus, allowing access to the location of the item. The management software interacts with the RFID tags for that specific container and item, along with the RFID readers, and the management software will be programmed to send an appropriate violation notification to a designated management personnel if the RFID tags do not re-appear on the designated RFID readers within a required timeframe.) A violation notification is an example of transmitting an alert comprising information about an anomaly.
However, Tisdel fails to teach:
-wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token
- analyzing, using an artificial intelligence engine,
-wherein identifying the one or more anomalies comprises executing an integrity validation check on the digital evidence,
-wherein the integrity validation check comprises:
-generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence;
-comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record;
-based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record,
-determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted.
Alternatively, Dods discloses a method of cross-authenticating non-credentialed devices and trust blockchain applications and gathering information upon request including captured evidence. Dods teaches:
-analyzing, using an artificial intelligence engine, identifying one or more anomalies (Dods [Col. 9 Lines 36-47] Learning model(s) 134 in conjunction with event hub 115 enable interface server(s) 102 to apply machine learning techniques (cluster identification, free form input learning) to observational global state of the block level events in the block chain, input of responses to follow-up questions obtained from user responses and actions, to identify anomalies, and decide when to gather additional information and/or filing a report to another entity into the blockchain network 106. Learning model(s) 134 implement unsupervised and transitioning to semi-supervised machine learning techniques, thereby enabling (re-)training and refinement to occur.) Using machine learning techniques to detect anomalies in blockchain records teaches the limitation above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tisdel by adding Dod’s features of using artificial intelligence to detect anomalies in the block chain record. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of reducing the influence of human error by using a human in the loop in a machine learning system, which would improve the security and interoperability of systems. (Dods [Col. 2 Lines 8-21])
However, neither Tisdel nor Dods teach or suggest:
-wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token -wherein identifying the one or more anomalies comprises executing an integrity validation check on the digital evidence, wherein the integrity validation check comprises: of the digital evidence; comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted.
Furthermore, Shen discloses a system for managing traffic violation and enforcement data using a distributed ledger, including a validation check which ensures that the system has not been edited or corrupted, by matching the current hash with the original hash. Shen teaches:
- wherein identifying the one or more anomalies comprises executing an integrity validation check on the digital evidence, (Shen[Col. 10 Lines 32-35] The distributed ledger 105 can be continuously audited and validated for data authenticity and integrity by the various nodes 101 of the system 100. [Col. 15 Lines 35-40] unverified instance) Shen’s unverified instance is mapped to “anomalies.”
- wherein the integrity validation check comprises: generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence; (Shen[Col. 16 Lines 7-11] The third node 101C can then generate a third package digest 128C of the reviewed digital evidence package 142 using the same hash function 130. For example, the third package digest 128C can be a 128-bit digest, a 224-bit digest, a 256-bit digest, a 384-bit digest, or a 512-bit digest.)
- comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; (Shen[Col. 15 Lines 1-29] The third node 101C can validate the modified digital evidence package 138 received from the second node 101B based on the second package digest 128B stored as part of the distributed ledger 105. The third node 101C can validate the modified digital evidence package 138 by querying the other nodes 101 of the blockchain network 104. For example, the third node 101C can validate the modified digital evidence package 138 by applying the same hash function 130 used by the first node 101A and the second node 101B to the modified digital evidence package 138 received from the second node 101B to generate an unverified instance of the second package digest. The third node 101C can then call a validate API 136 to compare the unverified instance of the second package digest against the second package digest 128B stored as part of the distributed ledger 105. For example, the third node 101C can call the validate API 136 to cause each node 101 to compare the unverified instance of the second package digest generated by the third node 101C against the second package digest 128B stored as part of its own instance of the distributed ledger 105. If the unverified instance of the second package digest generated by the third node 101C matches the second package digests 128B stored as part of the distributed ledgers 105, then the modified digital evidence package 138 received from the second node 101B is validated. At this point, the third node 101C can review and modify the contents of the modified digital evidence package 138 to yield a reviewed digital evidence package 142.)
- based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted. (Shen[Col. 15 Lines 30-40] The third node 101C is configured to only review and adjust the contents of the modified digital evidence package 138 if the modified digital evidence package 138 received from the second node 101B is validated based on the second package digest 128B included as part of the distributed ledger 105. If the unverified instance of the second package digest generated by the third node 101C does not match the second package digests 128B stored as part of the distributed ledgers 105, the modified digital evidence package 138 received from the second node 101B is considered invalid and possibly subject to tampering.) The Broadest reasonable interpretation of “corrupted” is any indication that the data is invalid, or does not match the original.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tisdel by adding an integrity validation check as taught by Shen. This would yield the predictable result of ensuring the validity of digital information by recording a hash and matching the current state of the hash to the original state to ensure tampering has not occurred. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would have the benefit of making the system impervious to hacks or other forms of human intervention. (Shen [Col. 1 Lines 23-43])
However, neither Shen, Tisdel nor Dods teaches or suggests:
-wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token
Alternatively, Paripally discloses systems and methods for tracking chain of custody of body worn on a blockchain network. Paripally teaches:
-wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token(Paripally [Col. 4 Line 66 – Col. 5 Line 12] The smart contract may issue a digital ID (e.g., an NFT) of the security camera 204 to the law enforcement officer for check-in/check-out... All video recorded subsequent to checking-out is associated with the NFT and the law enforcement officer, while the law enforcement officer is in possession of the camera and up to checking-in the camera. For checking-in, the NFT is sent back to the dock, which marks the unit as available again. [Col. 5 Lines 24-35] Each block in blockchain 300 is made up of a payload segment (e.g., 304, 310, 312, 314, 318), previous hash 306, and current hash 308. In some aspects, the initial hash value of the genesis block is a hash of the contents of payload segment 304. For example, the genesis block comprises information about a request for assignment. The information includes a name of the security camera requested for assignment, information about the camera (e.g., model, year, etc.), an identifier of the operator requesting the assignment (e.g., “Officer ABC”), a location of the camera (e.g., “NYC”), and a time when the request was received. The hash of this information is “1234ABCD5.” [Col. 7 Lines 24-33] Granting component 425 may verify, using the smart contract, that the first operator can take custody of the security camera (e.g., based on the credentials of the first operator) and issue to the first operator, using the smart contract, a non-fungible token (NFT) comprising the identifier of the security camera (e.g., a MAC address). Here, possession of the NFT is indicative of custody and the possession is monitored on the blockchain (i.e., whenever the NFT is transferred between operators, the transaction is recorded on the blockchain).) In view of the present specification, the BRI of “origination data record,” includes examples such as an “origin block” [0095], and “non-fungible token that uniquely represents the article of evidence.” In Paripally, the video camera and its recorded videos are examples of “article of evidence.” In Paripally, the NFT is associated with each camera, and a genesis block with information such as the camera (model, year etc), location information, and time of request. Since the BRI does not indicate how exactly the origination data record is stored in a form of an NFT, then it broadly encapsulates Paripally’s storing of the camera’s identification as an NFT.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Tisdel, Shen and Dods by adding the teachings of Paripally in which the article of evidence is stored in a form of an NFT. Storing the origination data specifically as an NFT, particularly in a blockchain system which both Tisdel and Paripally use, would has been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, since NFT’s are known to be used in blockchain to represent a digital asset. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention by the benefit stated by Paripally of using NFTs to verifiably store the custody and track possession of an asset on the blockchain. (Paripally [Col. 7 Lines 24-33] Granting component 425 may verify, using the smart contract, that the first operator can take custody of the security camera (e.g., based on the credentials of the first operator) and issue to the first operator, using the smart contract, a non-fungible token (NFT) comprising the identifier of the security camera (e.g., a MAC address). Here, possession of the NFT is indicative of custody and the possession is monitored on the blockchain (i.e., whenever the NFT is transferred between operators, the transaction is recorded on the blockchain).)
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 15:
The combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen, and Paripally teach or suggest The system of claim 1/ The computer program product of claim 8/ The computer-implemented method of claim 14
Furthermore, Tisdel teaches:
-wherein the resource is an article of digital evidence (Tisdel [Col. 13 Lines 7-12] Evidence management software includes computer instructions to link and combine data 901 to form a hash, also referred to as “mother hash” 800. Some exemplary types of data 901 include digital files confiscated during investigation, such as digital photographs, internet search histories, emails, and other such digital evidence. )
-wherein the transmitter is a wireless communication interface of a device that hosts the digital evidence, (Tisdel [Col. 11 Lines 12-22] The computer chip of the wireless tracking device may then serve as the primary identifier for the evidence contained within the evidence container. As such, all child hashes (hashes of individual evidence items) are tracked and linked to the RFID computer chip of the wireless tracking device of the container, such that the RFID of the container serves as the primary identifier for all evidence therein. Using near-field communication (NFC) technology, the wireless tracking device may be passively or actively monitored using secondary readers, transmitters, computer tablets, or other such devices, box 1318.)
-wherein the origination data record comprises location information regarding where the digital evidence was created, (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 36-63] Use of the presently disclosed hardware and software in association with a crime scene may include the following steps and/or features: (1) an officer or lab tech arrives at crime scene; (2) a case number is assigned by the agency system or dispatcher; (3) evidence is identified at the scene and photographed; (4) evidence is physically collected and transported for testing and/or storage; … initiating authorized access to the evidence management software, optionally using a private key; (8) the software recognizes the QR Code serial number (ECM, enterprise content management) as a new item and requests the scan of the second QR code on the item not yet scanned (e.g., the zip tie or RFID tag); (9) the officer/lab tech receives a prompt/confirmation to “marry” the two items; (10) in some embodiments, confirmation is received, and a prompt is given for the case number assigned by dispatch, which the officer/lab tech enters; (11) the software updates the RFID tag with time, date, zip tie serial number, GPS location, officer/lab tech credentials (which may be captured or entered at login), case number, and any additional information required by the relevant agency;) In this excerpt, “marrying” the two items is the creation of the digital evidence(combined data), which includes GPS location.
-a timestamp for creation of the digital evidence, (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 59-60] the software updates the RFID tag with time, date, )
-hash output of the digital evidence and (Tisdel [Col. 13 Lines 13-27] Evidence management software executes computer instructions to combine hash 600 with hash 800. Once the hash 600 (also referred to as scanning device hash) is combined hash 800 (also referred to as software hash), the two combined hashes generate a single hash, also referred to as “marriage hash” 902. Hash 800 will be updated and written again to the blockchain any time data 901 or data 900 is updated or new data is added. This will cause “marriage” hash 902 to update and be re-written to the blockchain. All historical “mother” and “marriage” hashes will remain in the immutable blockchain record. Furthermore, hash 600 will be updated and written again to the blockchain any time a new zip tie or RFID tag is introduced, which would force an update to hash 902. Hash 902 is entered into the blockchain 904, which may be stored onto a computer.)
-settings used to create the digital evidence. (Tisdel [Col. 11 Lines 4-12] With the evidence container secured in a closed configuration, a program option may be selected in the management software to program a computer chip (e.g., circuitry 205) embedded in the wireless tracking device to be associated with the evidence contained within the evidence container, box 1316. The computer chip is, thus, also associated with the scanned machine-readable identifications already linked to the evidence within the evidence management software.) Tisdel’s program option is mapped to setting.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 17:
The combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen, and Paripally teach or suggest The system of claim 1/ The computer program product of claim 8/ The computer-implemented method of claim 14
Tisdel teaches:
- wherein the resource is an article of physical evidence, (Tisdel [Col. 1 Lines 59-67]The method includes assigning the generated blockchain hash to physical item(s), and placing the physical item(s) within a container. The method includes coupling the fastener with the wireless tracker and with the container, such that the fastener secures the wireless tracker to the container and secures the container in a closed configuration with the physical items contained within the container. The method includes monitoring wireless signals emitted from the wireless tracker.)
-wherein the transmitter is at least one of a radio frequency ("RF") transmitter, a global positioning system ("GPS") transmitter, or an ultra-wide band ("UWB") transmitter, (Tisdel [Col. 5 Lines 25-43] The tracking system disclosed herein may include a wireless tracking device. The wireless tracking device may be any device capable of receiving and/or emitting wireless signals. For example, the wireless tracking device may receive and/or emit radio frequency signals, BLUETOOTH® signals, WI-FI™ signals, cellular signals, satellite communication signals, or other electromagnetic radiation-based wireless signals. In some aspects, the wireless tracking device constantly or intermittently receives and/or transmits wirelesses signals. The signals received by the wireless tracking device may be requests for location-based data, such as a request for a global positioning satellite (GPS) location. The signals transmitted by the wireless tracking device may be transmissions of location-based data, such as a GPS location of the wireless tracking device. As such, the location of the wireless tracking device, and anything coupled therewith, may be tracked, constantly or intermittently.)
-wherein the origination data record comprises location information regarding where the physical evidence was collected, (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 36-63] Use of the presently disclosed hardware and software in association with a crime scene may include the following steps and/or features: (1) an officer or lab tech arrives at crime scene; (2) a case number is assigned by the agency system or dispatcher; (3) evidence is identified at the scene and photographed; (4) evidence is physically collected and transported for testing and/or storage; … initiating authorized access to the evidence management software, optionally using a private key; (8) the software recognizes the QR Code serial number (ECM, enterprise content management) as a new item and requests the scan of the second QR code on the item not yet scanned (e.g., the zip tie or RFID tag); (9) the officer/lab tech receives a prompt/confirmation to “marry” the two items; (10) in some embodiments, confirmation is received, and a prompt is given for the case number assigned by dispatch, which the officer/lab tech enters; (11) the software updates the RFID tag with time, date, zip tie serial number, GPS location, officer/lab tech credentials (which may be captured or entered at login), case number, and any additional information required by the relevant agency;) In this excerpt, “marrying” the two items is the creation of the digital and physical evidence record(combined data), which includes GPS location.
-a timestamp for when the physical evidence was collected, (Tisdel [Col. 14 Lines 59-60] the software updates the RFID tag with time, date, )
-a description of the physical evidence, and (Tisdel [Col. 14 Line 60-61] case number, and any additional information required by the relevant agency;)
-identifying information regarding the first user. (Tisdel [Col. 14 Line 60] officer/lab tech credentials (which may be captured or entered at login))
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19:
The combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen, and Paripally teach or suggest The system of claim 1/ The computer program product of claim 8/ The computer-implemented method of claim 14
Tisdel teaches:
-wherein the one or more anomalies associated with the resource comprise at least one of unauthorized movement or access to the resource, (Tisdel [Col. 16 Lines 35-59] In some aspects, protocols for all rooms or areas containing items that fall under chain of custody guidelines have authorized access control measures in place. To locate a specific item to remove or manipulate the item (e.g., item of evidence), the location of the item is identified through authorized access to the management system. For the system to reveal the location of the item, the authorized user answers a query by the management software as to “why” access is needed. The “why” that is input into the management software must be a valid and authorized reason, which can be “pre-authorized” by the next step in the process. For example, in the case of a request for testing, the lab can submit a request, which would be a pre-authorization required by the management system, which would then notify the property clerk of the need to retrieve the item and permit access to its location upon request. Or, a property clerk could also answer the query without pre-authorization by answering that retrieval is required for testing; thus, allowing access to the location of the item. The management software interacts with the RFID tags for that specific container and item, along with the RFID readers, and the management software will be programmed to send an appropriate violation notification to a designated management personnel if the RFID tags do not re-appear on the designated RFID readers within a required timeframe.)
-missing or corrupt elements of the resource, or a gap in a chain of custody associated with the resource.(Tisdel [Col. 16 Lines 15-34] In operation, any activities associated with the creation, breach, movement, and/or destruction of a sealed bag will be annotated in the software with the last known activities stored in the RFID chip and in the management software blockchain. Using the software in a blockchain environment creates an immutable log of chain of custody transactions. Use of the RFID tag creates a seamless bond between physical evidence (evidence within the evidence bag) and digital evidence (evidence within the combined data file), or between other physical items, such as corporate inventory items, and digital files associated therewith. The use of the presently disclosed systems, methods, and apparatus may greatly reduce or eliminate the opportunities for human error in the chain of custody process. Every physical item and every electronic item (e.g., officer report, documents, images, recordings, etc.) is tracked in the blockchain, making it impossible to alter, add, remove, modify, or destroy any of these items of evidence without creating evidence that such an action took place.)
Regarding Claims 7, 20:
The combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen, and Paripally teach or suggest The system of claim 1/ The computer program product of claim 8/ The computer-implemented method of claim 14
Tisdel fails to teach:
-wherein the artificial intelligence engine is trained using supervised learning based on historical data associated with the resource and stored on the distributed register.
Dods teaches:
-wherein the artificial intelligence engine is trained using supervised learning.(Dods [Col. 10 Lines 15-18] The deep learning system 132 trains some of the learning model(s) 134 implementing neural networks in semi-supervised modalities to recognize anomalies and trigger remedial actions. [Col. 38 Lines 1-5] According to various embodiments, data from compliance reporting, data from clinical trials, and/or data from manufacturing and distribution processes can be developed into classifiers suited for semi-supervised and supervised machine learning applications by application of unsupervised machine learning techniques. See also Fig. 13C Supervised Deep Learning System ) Just like the present claims, an artificial engine is used in Dods to detect anomalies in the blockchain record.
- based on historical data associated with the resource and stored on the distributed register (Dods [Col. 38 Lines 18-32] In block 1232, an autoencoder semi-supervised statistical machine learner is applied to the documents stored in the blockchain ledger (e.g., pointed upon or stored in accordance with) to develop patterns of data recognized from in the documents. The autoencoder can be stand alone or a component of an unsupervised machine statistical learning model suite (e.g., 134 of FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B). One implementation of an autoencoder semi-supervised statistical machine learner is representative neural network 1311 illustrated by FIG. 13B, in which a neural network 1311 is used for implementing autoencoding to detect anomalous data, such as a spam, corrupt data, or data indicative of an anomaly in compliance reporting, data from clinical trials, and/or data from manufacturing and distribution processes or other bad data in the block chain.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tisdel by adding Dod’s features of using supervised learning to train the anomaly detection algorithm. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of reducing the influence of human error by using a human in the loop in a machine learning system, which would improve the security and interoperability of systems. (Dods [Col. 2 Lines 8-21])
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisdel (US 10896360 B2)
in view of Dods (US 11081219 B1),
further in view of Shen (US 11727795 B1),
further in view of Paripally (US 11962697 B2),
further in view of Smith et al. (US 20230260070 A1) hereinafter Smith.
The combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen, and Paripally teaches The system of claim 1/ The computer program product of claim 8/ The computer-implemented method of claim 14
Furthermore, Tisdel discloses: -wherein the event data record is digitally signed using the cryptographic key associated with the first user, (Tisdel [Col. 13 Lines 23-36] Furthermore, hash 600 will be updated and written again to the blockchain any time a new zip tie or RFID tag is introduced, which would force an update to hash 902. Hash 902 is entered into the blockchain 904, which may be stored onto a computer. In some aspects, a private key 700 is required to access data within blockchain 904 and/or combined data 900. For example, private key 700 may be generated via login credentials or other unique identifiers. Thus, private key 700, or similar login credentials, may be used to identify, track, and/or monitor users and/or devices that are used to access and/or modify combined data 900 and/or blockchain 904. In some aspects, private key 700 is the same or is linked with identification 112 of fastener 100. …)
However, neither Tisdel, Dods, nor Shen teach or suggest:
-wherein the event data record comprises an indication that the resource is being transferred to a second user,
-wherein the instructions further cause the processing device to perform the step of receiving a second event data record indicating receipt of the resource by the second user,
-wherein the second event data record is digitally signed using a cryptographic private key associated with the second user.
Alternatively, Paripally teaches:
-wherein the event data record comprises an indication that the resource is being transferred to a second user, (Paripally [Col. 7 Lines 30-33] Here, possession of the NFT is indicative of custody and the possession is monitored on the blockchain (i.e., whenever the NFT is transferred between operators, the transaction is recorded on the blockchain). [Col. 3 Lines 37-48] The present disclosure provides this verification by tracking the chain of custody of the body worn camera. This may involve determining who used the body worn camera, where the body worn camera was located changes in users/ownership, and actions performed on the camera. This information may be stored on a blockchain in order to secure the chain of custody.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Tisdel, Shen and Dods by adding the teachings of Paripally in which the chain of custody and transaction log indicates that a resource is being transferred to another user. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention by the benefit stated by Paripally of using NFTs to verifiably store the custody and track possession of an asset on the blockchain. (Paripally [Col. 7 Lines 24-33] Granting component 425 may verify, using the smart contract, that the first operator can take custody of the security camera (e.g., based on the credentials of the first operator) and issue to the first operator, using the smart contract, a non-fungible token (NFT) comprising the identifier of the security camera (e.g., a MAC address). Here, possession of the NFT is indicative of custody and the possession is monitored on the blockchain (i.e., whenever the NFT is transferred between operators, the transaction is recorded on the blockchain).)
However, neither Tisdel, Dods, Shen, nor Paripally teach or suggest:
-wherein the instructions further cause the processing device to perform the step of receiving a second event data record indicating receipt of the resource by the second user,
-wherein the second event data record is digitally signed using a cryptographic private key associated with the second user.
Alternatively, Smith discloses methods for processing recorded data by storing auditable event entries detected by the auditable device, including receipt of information indicating an event. For purposes of clarity, even though some limitations have been taught by the previous references, the entire claim 5 is shown below to be taught by Smith as follows:
-the event data record comprises an indication that the resource is being transferred to a second user.(Smith [0060] In some embodiments, an urgent event may be reported by the auditable camera 106 to one or more computing devices other than the evidence management system 102. In one example, the urgent event may be transmitted to a computing device associated with a supervisor of the user 92 and/or a computing device associated with another user associated with the user 92 (e.g., in an example where the user 92 is a law enforcement officer, the other user may be a partner of the user 92). [0065] In embodiments wherein urgent events are transmitted to one or more computing devices other than the evidence management system 102, the auditable camera 106 sends the auditable event entry to the one or more computing devices. ) The report including the auditable event entry teaches the limitation.
-wherein the event data record is digitally signed using the cryptographic key associated with the first user, (Smith [0051] At block 514, an audit trail signing engine 210 of the auditable camera 106 applies a digital signature to the auditable event entry. In some embodiments, applying the digital signature uses a cryptographic hash to guarantee that the auditable event entry has not been altered or corrupted since being signed. For example, in one non-limiting embodiment, the evidence management system 102 may assign a private key to the auditable camera 106, which is stored in the certificate data store 218 when the auditable camera 106 is connected via the physical dock interface 232. The private key is used by the audit trail signing engine 210 to create a cryptographic hash of the auditable event entry, which is then added to the auditable event entry to sign it.)
-wherein the instructions further cause the processing device to perform the step of receiving a second event data record indicating receipt of the resource by the second user, (Smith [0056] At block 528, in response to receiving an acknowledgement receipt from the evidence management system 102, the audit trail gathering engine 214 clears the contents of the audit trail data store 216. Waiting for the acknowledgement receipt ensures that the audit trail data was received by the evidence management system 102 and was stored successfully before it is cleared from the auditable camera 106. In some embodiments, the evidence management system 102 may provide one acknowledgement receipt for the entire contents of the audit trail data store 216. In some embodiments, the evidence management system 102 may provide acknowledgement receipts for subsets of the uploaded data. For example, data may be uploaded in chronological order from the audit trail data store 216, and the evidence management system 102 transmits an acknowledgement receipt for each individual piece of content.)
-wherein the second event data record is digitally signed using a cryptographic private key associated with the second user. (Smith [0051] In some embodiments, the cryptographic hash may be stored elsewhere, such as in the certificate data store 218, and may simply be associated with the auditable event entry instead of being added to it. In some embodiments, the audit trail signing engine 210 may sign the data stored in the video data store 222 and the audio data store 224 using a similar technique. In some embodiments, the signatures generated for the video and/or audio data may be added to the auditable event entry before the auditable event entry is signed. In some embodiments, some other suitable technique for applying digital signatures that ensure that data has not been altered or corrupted is used instead of the technique described above.) Since the acknowledgement of receipt is an example of “auditable event”, which are signed with cryptographic keys, the limitations have been taught.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen and Paripally by adding Smith’s features of indication of transfer, acknowledgement of receipt, and cryptographically signing each event with cryptographic keys. This would provide the benefit of providing a reliable chain of custody while preserving energy consumption. (Smith [0002])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
In regards to applicant’s arguments over the patentability of claims on page 9, the applicant disagrees with the Office’s 101 rejection, in light of Federal Circuit decisions in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc v. At&T Mobility LLC and Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the present claims are analagous to Bascom and Amdocs. Firstly, the applicant cites to Bascom indicating that the combination of elements, rather than the additional elements alone, were directed to specific improvements in the recited computer technology, that go beyond well-understood, routine, conventional activities. However, the applicant does not provide specific arguments towards the similarity of Bascom to the present claims. The examiner appreciates the applicant’s summarization of the relevant key points from the Bascom case throughout pages 9-10 of the applicant’s remarks, and the examiner has fully considered these sections. However, the present claims, in contrast from Bascom, even when viewing the combination of elements, fail to purport or reflect specific improvements to computer functionality. Firstly, as a combination it merely uses computers as a tool to execute instructions, where the instructions are merely generally linking the abstract idea to blockchain, AI, and NFT technology without meaningfully limiting its use on the claims. Even when considering the integrity validation check process, which is recited broadly such that it encapsulates mere instructions or steps for an individual to perform, the entire process of generating a validation hash output of the digital evidence, comparing the validation hash output with the hash output of the digital evidence stored within the origination data record; based on detecting a mismatch between the validation hash output and the hash output stored within the origination data record, determining that the digital evidence has been corrupted;” is, at best, well-understood, routine or conventional in the industry of blockchain. Therefore, as a whole, the claims are no more than a well-understood routine, conventional process performed on a generic computing device, without a technical improvement. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because even when considered the combination of elements or the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, specifically that the recited elements, in combination, “are not directed to generic computing components claimed to perform their basic functions,” but an “improvement to security and integrity of digital data, thereby providing a non-conventional evidence integrity architecture.” This argument is not persuasive because of the claims do not reflect any improvements to security and integrity of digital data over conventional systems, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims provide an improvement to computer functionality or technology. Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments that the combination of the claim elements provide a specific way to track and verify integrity of digital evidence is also not persuasive because tracking the integrity of evidence is a recitation of an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity, and the additional elements have not been shown to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more for the same reasons provided in the rejection.
Furthermore, in regards to the applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to Amdocs, the examiner appreciates the applicant’s attempts to summarize and identify the relevant points in the Amdocs in page 12 of the applicant’s remarks. However, even when considering these findings, the applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive because no clear nexus has been drawn to Amdocs. The findings that made Amdocs eligible do not apply to the present claims because the present claims do not clearly entail “an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem.” The conventionality of the present claims is supported by the Berkheimer evidence provided in the 101 rejection above, showing that the integrity validation check is merely a conventional manner of tracking digital information. Thus, no improvements or enhancements towards a particular technological problem have been purported by the applicant. The level of generality of the claims in regards to the “artificial intelligence engine,” “NFT”, and “blockchain” show that even as a combination, when weighing the combination against the multiple considerations (MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(a) “improvements to technology”, MPEP 2106.05(h) “general link”, MPEP 2106.05(d) “Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” and MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant extra-solution activity), it is clear that multiple considerations do not favor eligibility. Therefore, even as a combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments over 101 are not persuasive, and thus the rejections under 101 stand.
In regards to applicant’s arguments over prior art rejections, start in section “B. 35 U.S.C. 103” on page 12 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated rejection, or are not persuasive. Firstly, the applicant argues that the combination does not specifically teach “(i) receiving, from the user computing device, an event data record comprising event-related data associated with a change in a status of the resource; (ii) appending the origination data record, the location information, and the event data record to a distributed data register, wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the combination fails to teach limitation (i). The applicant argues that Tisdel discloses tracking a permanent record of all wireless activity and interactions...but nowhere does Tisdel teach or suggest receiving...event related data associated with a change in a status. However, this argument is not persuasive because Tisdel is shown in the rejection above to teach event-related data associated with a change in a status. The “associated with a change in a status” is broad enough to encompass any change in any status, and does not limit how such event-related data is “associated.” Therefore, Tisdel’s teachings in [Col. 13 Lines 56-60], which discusses each modification of the physical evidence, satisfies the broad limitation because a modification is an example of a change in status. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments over limitation (i) are not persuasive.
Furthermore, regarding limitation (2), the applicant asserts that the combination fails to teach “wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token.” Upon review of the cited art of record, Tisdel, Dods, and Shen, the examiner agrees that neither Tisdel, Dods, nor Shen mention non-fungible tokens. However, the argument is moot in view of the updated rejection which now relies upon a combination of Tisdel, Dods, Shen and Paripally, wherein Paripally is relied upon to teach or suggest “wherein the origination data record is stored in a form of a non-fungible token.” Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the updated rejection.
Therefore, because the updated rejection is shown to teach each and every limitation of the claims as amended, none of the applicant’s arguments over the prior art are persuasive and the rejection under 103 stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626