DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 13, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgement
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination and the amendment filed on March 13, 2026. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections the amendment overcomes the objections and the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant merely argues that Cordonnier does not teach the amended features of independent claims. The examiner respectfully notes that the amendments are taught by the newly cited reference of Bulleit and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulleit (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0060496,) in view of Cordonnier (US Patent No. 11,443,838.)
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 24, Bulleit teach:
a machine readable medium storing instructions; (computer-readable memory storing instructions: [0212])
a processor that executes the instructions…(processor executing instructions: [0212])
receive a request to delegate authority to a delegate on behalf of a delegator; (a request to access health information resources received from a client device: FIG. 13, [0179]-[0180], [0191] party owning the information, user, patient (delegator): [0009], [0042], [0044] requesting party, second user, healthcare provider (delegate): [0050], [0067])
in response to the request:
generate a [access token] and an associated smart contract, the associated smart contract encoding a scope of the authority delegated to the delegate; (generate permission instructions that reflect permission conditions (scope of the authority): [0184] generate and execute smart contract: [0061], the smart contract issues (generates) access tokens: [0061], [0105])
store the [access token] and the associated smart contract on a blockchain; (access token is recorded on the blockchain: [0011], [0189], smart contracts are contained within blockchain: [0008], [0010], [0060]-[0061])
provide the [access token] to a token wallet associated with the delegate; (access token is acquired and stored in a digital wallet 722 on client device 104: FIG. 7, [0118], [0122], [0128], client device 104 is a provider device: FIG. 1, item 104(2), [0044])
receive from the delegate, a request to perform a delegated transaction; (access request is received from a client device 104: FIG. 14, [0185]-[0186])
determine that the [access token] is assigned to the token wallet associated with the delegate; (determine if access token is received: [0185], [0187])
determine, using the associated smart contract, that the delegated transaction is within the scope of the authority encoded in the [access token]; (determine if entity (delegate) has conditional access, an entity with conditional access to health information is interpreted as a delegate : [0181]-[0182])
in response to determining that the [access token] is assigned to the token wallet associated with the delegate and that the delegated transaction is within the scope of the authority, authorize performance of the delegated transaction. ( when access token is verified, the requested resource is provided to the requestor (delegate): [0187]-[0188])
Bulleit do not explicitly teach that the access token is an NFT. However, Cordonnier teach:
generate a non-fungible token (NFT) and an associated smart contract that is associated with authorization of the authority, (authorizing access to healthcare data using NFTs and smart contracts: Col. 4 ll. 21-51, Col. 6 ll. 31-57, Col. 26 l. 53-Col. 27 l. 17)
store the NFT and the associated smart contract that is associated with authorization of the authority on a blockchain, (NFTs stored on the blockchain: Col. 4 ll. 38-41, and ll. 52-59)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claim 2, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the processor is operable to revoke the access token in response to a request from the delegator. (access permission can be revoked: [0205]-[0206])
In addition, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…is operable to revoke the access…” indicates intended use of the processor and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “revoking” function is not positively recited.
With respect to claim 3, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the processor is operable to generate a new token in response to a request from the delegator. (request for new permission is received and a new access token is issued: [0103]-[0105])
In addition, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…is operable to generate…” indicates intended use of the processor and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “generating” function is not positively recited.
With respect to claim 4, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 3.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the processor provides [the new access token] to at least one of the delegator or the delegate. (access token is issued to permissioned user (delegate): [0105])
In addition, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Moreover, Cordonnier teach: :
wherein the processor provides the NFT to at least one of the delegator or the delegate. (Col. 25 ll. 1-20)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claim 9, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 8 .
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the delegator comprises a streaming service, a gaming service, an airline site, a bank, or another password protected site or application. (a healthcare application is downloaded on client device: [0045]-[0049], client accesses healthcare application by access credentials (password): [0087])
The examiner respectfully notes that the claim recitation “wherein the delegator comprises…” indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes a “delegator” and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim. This is because a “delegator” is an entity outside the claimed system and the identity or type of a “delegator” does not affect the claimed features.
With respect to claim 10, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the authority comprises access to content from the streaming service, the gaming service, the airline site, the bank, or the other password protected site or application. (a healthcare application is downloaded on client device: [0045]-[0049], client accesses healthcare application by access credentials (password): [0087])
The examiner respectfully notes that the claim recitation “wherein the authority comprises access to content from…” indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes the service that the content belongs to, and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim. This is because the fact that the content is from a sp0ecific service provider does not affect the claimed features.
With respect to claim 11, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 10.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the access is from a device, a website or the like, associated with a token wallet to which the [access token] is assigned (access from client devices: [0121], access token is stored on a digital wallet associated with client device : [0122], [0128]))
In addition, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claim 13, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 8.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the processor:
renders the [access token] unusable; (access permission can be revoked or modified: [0106], [0205]-[0206])
generate a new [access token]: (a new access token is generated: [0103]-[0105])
provides the new [access token]. (access token is provided to client device: [0122], [0128])
In addition, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claim 22, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
receiving the request to perform the delegated transaction comprises obtaining a code from an electronic device; (access request including the token (code) is received from user device 104: FIG. 14, [0186])
determining that the [access token] is assigned to the token wallet associated with the delegate comprises verifying that the [access token] is assigned to a token wallet associated with the electronic device; (access token is stored in a digital wallet: [0122], [0128], determine if access token is received: [0187])
authorizing performance of the delegated transaction comprises transmitting an authorization signal… (access token (authorization signal) is provided to the client device: [0122], [0128])
In addition, Cordonnier teach:
the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…to configure …” indicates intended use of the authorization and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “configuring” function is not positively recited.
With respect to claim 23, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 8.
Moreover, Bulleit teach:
wherein the processor allows the delegate to make use of the authority in response to a request from the delegate... ((access request is received: FIG. 14, [0186], after access token is verified, the requested resource is provided: [0187]-[0188])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…to make use of the authority…” indicates intended use of the processor and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “using the authority” function is not positively recited, and even if positively recited, the function is performed by a “delegate” who is not a component of the claimed system.
In addition, Cordonnier teach:
…a request associated with a token wallet that is associated with the NFT. (Col. 7 ll. 12-34, Col. 31 ll. 22-43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
With respect to claim 26, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 24.
wherein the [access token] is provided to the token wallet associated with the delegate by associating the [access token] with the token wallet associated with the delegate. (access token is acquired and stored in a digital wallet: [0122], [0128])
Moreover, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit , in order to improve security and traceability of digital assets by converting asset information into non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. (Cordonnier: Abstract, Col. 3 ll. 14-45)
Claims 5, 12, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulleit , in view of Cordonnier , further in view of Turner (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0271915.)
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Bulleit and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach; however, Turner teach:
wherein the processor is operable to generate a child token in response to a request from the delegate. ([0097], [0105], [0124]-[0126])
wherein the token is a child token generated on behalf of the delegator who has a parent token. ([0097], [0105], [0124]-[0126])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating child NFTs, as taught by Turner , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit and Cordonnier, in order to create a hierarchical requirement between non-fungible tokens such as providing different levels of access authorization for a child NFT compared to its parent NFT.
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…is operable to generate…” indicates intended use of the processor and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “generating” function is not positively recited. In addition the claim recitation “child token is generated…” indicates a function that is not positively recited and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 21, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 1.
Bulleit and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach; however, Turner teach:
wherein the scope of the authority delegated to the delegate includes generation of a child NFT. ([0097], [0105], [0124]-[0126])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating child NFTs, as taught by Turner , into the resource access authorization of Bulleit and Cordonnier , in order to create a hierarchical requirement between non-fungible tokens such as providing different levels of access authorization for a child NFT compared to its parent NFT.
With respect to claim 25, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 24.
Bulleit and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach; however, Turner teach:
wherein the NFT is provided to the token wallet associated with the delegate by providing the NFT to the delegator who then provides the NFT to the token wallet associated with the delegate.
wherein the NFT is provided to the token wallet associated with the delegate by providing the NFT to the delegator who then provides the NFT to the token wallet associated with the delegate. (token owner (i.e., delegator) provides the token to another person (i.e., delegate): [0096], [0119], [0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating child NFTs, as taught by Turner , into the digital asset access authorization of Bulleit and Cordonnier , in order to provide an additional layer of security where the token owner can choose to provide the access token to the other person.
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…delegator who then provides...” indicates a function performed by a “delegator” which is not a component of the claimed program product, and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulleit in view of Cordonnier (US Patent No. 11,443,838,) further in view of Churchill (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0286861.)
With respect to claim 7, Bulleit and Cordonnier teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Cordonnier teach that the access token is an NFT. (Col. 4 ll. 21-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate generating, storing and providing authorization NFTs and smart contracts, as taught by Cordonnier , into the resource access authorization of Bulleit , in order to protect access to assets and track asset access by storing and tracking the authorization NFTs in a blockchain. (Cordonnier : Abstract, Col. 6 ll. 37-47)
Bulleit and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach; however, Churchill teach:
wherein the token expires after passage of an expiration date. ([0089]-[0091])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate access token expiration, as taught by Churchill , into the resource access authorization using NFT’s of Bulleit and Cordonnier, in order to prevent unauthorized access to digital assets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jakobsson (US 2022/0407702) teaches providing access to resources by generating access tokens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights