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 .
Acknowledgements
The reply filed 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 6, 9-14, and 16-19 have been amended. Claims 7-8 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-6 and 9-19 are pending and being presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
The drawing submitted on 11/18/2025 has been accepted. The objection to the drawings set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/18/2025, to claims 2, 6, 12-13, and 16-17 have overcome the claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025. Therefore, the claim objections of 2, 6, 12-13, and 16-17 have been withdrawn.
The cancelation of claims 7-8 and 20 has rendered the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 7-8, 11, and 20, set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025, moot. Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/18/2025, to claims 9-10, 14, and 18-19 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 9-10, 14, and 18-19 has been withdrawn.
The cancelation of claim 20 has rendered the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (human organism) of claim 20, set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025, moot.
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“These steps cannot be navigated by the human mind, even with pen and paper, and represent specific technological steps that must be implemented to achieve the functionality of the present claim. These are not details recited a high level of generality in an attempt to preemptively monopolize some fundamental concept.
The analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two assesses whether the claims, as a whole, are "directed to" the judicial exception, or whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The present claims clearly integrate the judicial exception into the practical application of a system configured to construct and submit blockchain transaction to effect the transfer of ownership of a token. This amounts to improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field: MPEP 2106.04(d)(l).”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the identified abstract idea was categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically, in the form of commercial or legal interactions such as sales activities, see pg. 7 of the Non-Final Rejection 05/19/2025. The identified abstract idea was not categorized under mental processes. Therefore, Applicant’s remark regarding how the steps cannot be navigated by the human mind, even with pen and paper, are not relevant since it is not addressing the original grouping of the identified abstract idea. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field because it is not improving blockchain technology. At most, it is merely using the advantages of blockchain technology to improve a transaction process. Improving a transaction process, such as transfer of ownership of a token, is not an improvement to functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Please see below for an updated analysis in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“First, in Pelosa [Polasa] there is only a single owner of the NFT (and, correspondingly, the tokenized asset associated with the NFT). Ownership of that asset is transferred by transferring the NFT from one use to the next. Second, when transferring the NFT, Polosa [Polasa] does not describe the construction and submission of "a second block chain transaction configured to spend a token output of the first blockchain transaction and wherein an output of the second blockchain transaction includes the digital token and is locked to a public key of a provider of the online platform.”
In contrast, the present claim contemplates the generation of one or more digital tokens that are associated with a particular digital content item. The claim then describes the construction of a specific blockchain transaction (that relies on the output of a previously-identified different blockchain transaction) to enable a transfer of one or the digital tokens.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Polasa et al. U.S. 2023/0368184 for the limitations specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 and 9-19 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 18-19 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to claims 1 and 18-19. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A computer-implemented method of issuing tokens using a blockchain, wherein the method is performed by a platform provider and comprises:
obtaining, from an authorised user, a digital content item;
arranging for storage of the digital content item and/or sending the digital content item to a storage provider for storage by the storage provider;
generating one or more digital tokens, each digital token comprising data representing and/or associated with the digital content item;
arranging for submission of one or more transactions to a blockchain, each transaction comprising data associated with a respective one of said one or more digital tokens;
providing an online platform to users to view, purchase, trade and/or sell the one or more digital tokens;
receiving a request, via the online platform, from a requesting user to purchase a digital token of the one or more digital tokens;
determining a first blockchain transaction of the one or more transactions that is associated with the digital token;
constructing a second block chain transaction configured to spend a token output of the first blockchain transaction and wherein an output of the second blockchain transaction includes the digital token and is locked to a public key of a provider of the online platform; and
submitting a further transaction to the blockchain, the further transaction comprising the second blockchain transaction and comprising data indicative of changing ownership of the digital token such that the requesting user is made owner of the digital token.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-J recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Tokenizing digital content to make it available for view, purchase, trade and/or sell, transferring ownership of a digital token, and recording/documenting such transfer is at least a sales activity.
Claims 1 and 18-19 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
The additional element of a “blockchain” amounts to no more than general usage of a data structure. When the “blockchain” is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claims 1 and 18-19, each as a whole amounts to no more than mere steps to implement an abstract idea on a data structure. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 18-19 also recite “a computer-implemented method,” “an online platform,” “processing apparatus,” “memory,” “code,” “a computer program,” “ computer-readable storage,” “a computer implemented system,” and “a platform processor” as additional elements. The additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that the abstract idea in limitations A-J are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claims 1 and 18-19 amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 18-19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claims 1 and 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9-11, and 15-17 elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 recites performing one or more detection processes on the digital content item, wherein generation of the digital token is conditional on the detection. This limitation introduces an additional abstract idea: mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Detecting for undesirable content can be reasonably performed in the human mind. The limitation does not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claim introduces an additional abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Dependent claims 12-14 further elaborate on the step of arranging for the storage of the digital content item and/or sending the digital content item to the storage provider for storage by the storage provider. The limitations are considered additional elements, however, they are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e. providing an upload link, obtaining the upload link, signing the upload link, and obtaining or receiving a notification that upload is complete are all merely linking the sales activity to a computer via the upload link. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polasa et al. U.S. 2023/0368184 (herein referred to as “Polasa”) in view of Caldwell U.S. 2019/0220836 (herein referred to as “Caldwell”).
Re Claim 1, Polasa discloses a computer-implemented method of issuing tokens using a blockchain, wherein the method is performed by a platform provider and comprises:
obtaining, from an authorised user, a digital content item [0041] – “the user 102 may
submit digital content 273…In this way, the security platform 200 may receive submissions from one or more users 102 in the form of digital content 273,”;
arranging for storage of the digital content item and/or sending the digital content item to a storage provider for storage by the storage provider ([0063] – “The user account is used by the security platform 200 in order to store user-submitted digital content,” i.e. arranging for storage of the digital content item);
generating one or more digital tokens, each digital token comprising data representing and/or associated with the digital content item ([0045] – “the security platform 200 may generate a smart contract for creation of an NFT based on the digital content,” i.e. associated with the digital content item);
arranging for submission of one or more transactions to a blockchain, each transaction comprising data associated with a respective one of said one or more digital tokens ([0040] – “The customer NFT validation module 253 (of security platform 200) may also contain metadata related to digital content or NFTs…In some embodiments, the customer NFT validation module 253 may act as a data interjector for submitting proposed data records to the distributed register 300,” [0057] – “The distributed register 300 may be a computing system that submits data to the nodes 402, 403, 404, and 405 in the form of proposed data records to be added to the distributed register 300.” Although, Polasa does not expressly disclose that the distributed register and the nodes of the distributed trust computing network form a blockchain, Polasa does disclose in [0005] that “the platform may facilitate the storage of the digital content on the blockchain” and in [0030] – blockchain (private or public) may be used for management, access, and transfer of resources or content. Therefore, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the distributed system, i.e. distributed register and nodes, can be a blockchain).
providing an online platform to users to view, purchase, trade and/or sell the one or
more digital tokens [0046] – “The security platform 200 may provide, via the…web interface 270…one or more NFT management options to the user. These options may include links to share the NFT with others who may wish to view…or may also include options to transfer ownership…”.
However, Polasa does not expressly disclose
receiving a request, via the online platform, from a requesting user to purchase a digital token of the one or more digital tokens;
determining a first blockchain transaction of the one or more transactions that is associated with the digital token;
constructing a second block chain transaction configured to spend a token output of the first blockchain transaction and wherein an output of the second blockchain transaction includes the digital token and is locked to a public key of a provider of the online platform; and
submitting a further transaction to the blockchain, the further transaction comprising the second blockchain transaction and comprising data indicative of changing ownership of the digital token such that the requesting user is made owner of the digital token.
Caldwell discloses methods and systems for media distribution employing contracts implemented in a distributed ledger. Specifically, Caldwell discloses
receiving a request, via the online platform, from a requesting user to purchase a digital token of the one or more digital tokens [0051] – “allows an end user (referred to as a Buyer) to select and initiate a purchase of an ownership token for a particular digital media content item…provided in its marketplace of digital media content items”;
determining a first blockchain transaction of the one or more transactions that is associated with the digital token ([0292] – “the assignment of the ownership token to the Buyer can be encoded by a Purchase transaction with a transaction input referencing UTXO of the Buyer with a signature based on the Buyer’s private key and one or more transaction outputs that specify an amount of cryptocurrency…and corresponding locking script that specifies the address (the public key) for the party to be paid),” referencing the UTXO and locking script suggests the first blockchain transaction is determined);
constructing a second block chain transaction configured to spend a token output of the first blockchain transaction and wherein an output of the second blockchain transaction includes the digital token and is locked to a public key of a provider of the online platform ([0292] – “construction of the Purchase transaction,” “assignment of the ownership token to the Buyer can encoded by a Purchase transaction with a transaction input referencing…one or more transaction outputs that specify an amount of cryptocurrency…and corresponding locking script that specifies the address (public key) for the party to be paid,” “Such transaction outputs can be claimed or spent by the particular party by a spending transaction with a transaction input that refers to the corresponding transaction output (UTXO), “Data representing the ownership token itself…can be included as part of the purchase transaction,”; and
submitting a further transaction to the blockchain, the further transaction comprising the second blockchain transaction and comprising data indicative of changing ownership of the digital token such that the requesting user is made owner of the digital token ([0292] – “when the Purchase transaction is validated and then stored in the blockchain, i.e. submitted, the Purchase transaction includes the data representing the ownership token itself and the ownership of the token held by the Buyer as part of the Purchase transaction.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa’s management of digital content with the teachings of receiving a request to purchase a digital token, determining a first blockchain associated with the digital token, constructing a second blockchain transaction configured to spend a token output of the first blockchain transaction and including the digital token, and submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain in Caldwell. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 2, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein said obtaining of the digital content item comprises obtaining the digital content item via the online platform Polasa, [0041] – “The application portal 254 may further comprise a web interface 270, a mobile application 271, or an API interface 272. In some embodiments, the user 102 may submit digital content 273 via the user device 104 via the one or more components of the application portal 254.”
Re Claim 4, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein said generating the one or more digital tokens is conditional on:
receiving a payment, via the online platform, from the authorised user; and/or
performing an identity verification of the authorised user (Polasa, [0063] – “user may provide authentication credentials, in the form of a username, password…in order to further verify and access their specific user account on the security platform 200,” “[0045] – “Once the system has stored the digital content in the user account, the security platform 200 may generate a smart contract for creation of an NFT based on the digital content,” thereby suggesting an identity verification for the user account would need to precede the generation of the digital token because the user would need to access the user account to upload the digital content for it to be then stored in their user account, and subsequently, to generate an NFT based on the digital content).
Re Claim 5, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 4, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein said payment is received via a blockchain wallet application Polasa, [0029] – “the user may authorize a resource transfer using at least a payment instrument (credit cards, debit cards, checks, digital wallets, digital currency, loyalty points, or the like),” “A resource transfer may refer to…interactions involving a user’s resource or account.”
Re Claim 9, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach comprising providing access, to the requesting user, to the digital content item represented by and/or associated with the digital token, or authorising the storage provider to provide access to the digital content item represented by and/or associated with the digital token, wherein access is provided via the online platform (Polasa, [0045] – “(The user) may simply use the security platform 200 (Fig. 2 – 200 includes the application portal 254, web interface 270, etc.) to access, view, manage, transfer, their digital resources, or the like,” i.e. providing access to the digital content item).
Re Claim 10, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein said submitting of the further transaction is conditional on receiving a payment, via the online platform, from the requesting user (Polasa, [0029] – “the user may authorize a resource transfer using at least a payment instrument,” “a resource transfer may refer to the purchase of digital content, wherein the ownership of the digital content is transferred between users,” since the distributed register tracks ownership information, this suggests that ownership information would be updated, i.e. submitting of the transaction, after a purchase of the digital content, i.e. after receiving a payment).
Re Claim 11, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach comprising providing, via the online platform, a payment to the authorised user in response to the request Polasa, [0063] – “the payment may be processed and sent to the receiving party from the customer or user’s account.”
Re Claim 12, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein the step of arranging for the storage of the digital content item and/or sending the digital content item to the storage provider for storage by the storage provider comprises:
providing an upload link to the authorised user, such that the authorised user is able to upload the digital content item to the storage provider for storage (Polasa, [0036] – “a public facing portal which allows a user to upload content and provide secure links to view or access the content,” [0041] – “The application portal 254 may further comprise a web interface 270…the user 102 may submit digital content 273 via the user device 104 via the one or more components of the application portal 254,” [0049] – “the user device 104 (may be allowed to) transmit and receive…data and instructions to or from the security platform 200, web content, such as, for example…web page content, according to…Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and/or the like,” thereby suggesting that the user can upload or submit their digital content through a link because the application portal may further comprise of a web interface and the user device may communicate with the security platform via http).
Re Claim 14, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 12, Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach further comprising:
obtaining or receiving a notification from the storage provider that upload of the digital content item has completed (Polasa, [0036] – “provide secure links to view or access the content,” The instant specification discloses on pg. 4, line 22 - “Preferably the trigger/notification comprises a further link to the content uploaded.” Therefore, the security platform 200 providing links to view/access the content is analogous to obtaining a notification because this suggests that the content was successfully uploaded, which is an interpretation supported by the instant specification).
Re Claim 15, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, and Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach wherein each transaction comprises one or more outputs, each output comprising a respective one of said one or more digital tokens and being locked to a public key of the authorised user and/or the platform provider (Caldwell, [0292] – “a purchase transaction” can include “corresponding locking script that specifies the address (public key) for the party to be paid,” i.e. authorized user and/or platform provider, “Data representing the ownership token itself…can be included as part of the purchase transaction,” i.e. digital token).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa’s management of digital content with the teachings of the transaction including the digital token and public key of the authorised user and/or platform provider in Caldwell. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 18, it is the apparatus claim of method claim 1. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 1. Furthermore, Polasa discloses in Fig. 2 – memory device 250 and processing device 242 of the security platform 200. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 19, it is the computer-readable storage claim of method claim 1. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 1. Furthermore, Polasa discloses in Fig. 2 – computer readable instructions 252 in a memory device 250. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polasa et al. U.S. 2023/0368184 (herein referred to as “Polasa”) in view of Caldwell U.S. 2019/0220836 (herein referred to as “Caldwell”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norton et al. U.S. 2010/0332618 (herein referred to as “Norton”) and Wang et al. U.S. 2021/0133713 (herein referred to as “Wang”).
Re Claim 3, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, however, Polasa in view of Caldwell do not explicitly teach comprising:
performing one or more detection processes on the digital content item, wherein the one or more detection processes include one or more of:
antivirus detection,
copyright infringement detection,
illegal content detection.
Norton discloses a method and apparatus for filtering streaming data. Specifically, Norton discloses
performing one or more detection processes on the digital content item [0087] – “an editing process includes data screening to ensure absence of any undesirable insertions, especially harmful insertions,” wherein the one or more detection processes include one or more of:
antivirus detection [0220] – “using third party applications to perform actions on media (such as scanning a media for viruses),”
copyright infringement detection,
illegal content detection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell’s management of digital content with the teachings of performing one or more detection processes on the digital content item in Norton. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure that the content does not contain any harmful insertions Norton, [0082].
Polasa in view of Norton do not explicitly teach
wherein generation of the one or more digital tokens is conditional on the one or more detection processes.
Wang discloses asset right management system and method based on blockchain. Specifically, Wang discloses
wherein generation of the one or more digital tokens is conditional on the one or more detection processes [0024] – “the token generating function can detect whether a generation condition has been satisfied already before the token generating function generates the ownership token.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell and Norton’s management of digital content including a screening process of said content with the teachings of generating the digital token based on condition(s) in Wang. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Claims 6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polasa et al. U.S. 2023/0368184 (herein referred to as “Polasa”) in view of Caldwell U.S. 2019/0220836 (herein referred to as “Caldwell”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldston et al. U.S. 2021/0279305 (herein referred to as “Goldston”).
Re Claim 6, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, however, Polasa in view of Caldwell do not explicitly teach comprising:
obtaining, from the authorised user, image and/or video data associated with the digital content item;
storing the image and/or video data and/or sending the image and/or video data to the storage provider for storage by the storage provider; and
associating, on the online platform, the image and/or video data with the one or more digital tokens.
Goldston discloses tokenized media content management. Specifically, Goldston discloses
obtaining, from the authorised user, image and/or video data associated with the digital content item [0094] – “The management user interface may allow the owner to designate images, videos and other files, and upload these files in association with the designated media items”;
storing the image and/or video data and/or sending the image and/or video data to the storage provider for storage by the storage provider [0089] – “the digital vault obtains media items from the owner…The digital vault may then upload the selected media items into its repository”; and
associating, on the online platform, the image and/or video data with the one or more digital tokens ([0094] – “associate one or more images and/or videos with songs and/or albums,” [0128] – content created, such as a song or album, can be a content item created as an NFT content item intended for sale using an NFT transaction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell’s management of digital content with the teachings of obtaining, storing, and associating the image and/or video with the one or more digital tokens in Goldston. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 16, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 1, however, Polasa in view of Caldwell do not explicitly teach comprising the step of:
providing the digital content item to a distribution outlet.
Goldston discloses tokenized media content management. Specifically, Goldston discloses
providing the digital content to a distribution outlet (Fig. 1, [0069] – “controlled distribution of digital music”, i.e. providing the digital content, [0077] – “Reviewing users 130 are an intended audience of the owners, such as…producers, distributors, agents, labels…,” i.e. distribution outlet).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell’s management of digital content with the teachings of providing the media content to producers, distributors, agents, etc. in Goldston. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow media content owners who own some or all of the rights associated with a media content item to divest those rights to others and track such divestiture Goldston, [0010].
Re Claim 17, Polasa in view of Caldwell and Goldston teach the method of claim 16, and Polasa in view of Caldwell and Goldston further teach wherein the provision of the digital content item to the distribution outlet is based on a distribution plan selected by the authorised user (Goldston, [0090] – “In sharing 340, the sharing user interface allows the owner, i.e. authorized user, to identify one or more reviewing users and the media items in the music owner’s account to which the reviewing users are provided access,” i.e. selected distribution plan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell’s management of digital content with the teachings of provision of the digital content item to the distribution outlet is based on a distribution plan selected in Goldston. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve access control, thereby securing the media item and contents Goldston, [0206].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polasa et al. U.S. 2023/0368184 (herein referred to as “Polasa”) in view of Caldwell U.S. 2019/0220836 (herein referred to as “Caldwell” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Krajicek et al. U.S. 2022/0179925 (herein referred to as “Krajicek”).
Re Claim 13, Polasa in view of Caldwell teach the method of claim 12, Polasa in view of Caldwell further teach the step of arranging for the storage of the digital content item and/or sending the digital content item to the storage provider for storage by the storage further comprises the step of:
obtaining the upload link from the storage provider (Polasa, [0036] – “a public facing portal which allows a user to upload content and provide secure links to view or access the content,” [0041] – “The application portal 254 may further comprise a web interface 270…the user 102 may submit digital content 273 via the user device 104 via the one or more components of the application portal 254,” [0049] – “the user device 104 (may be allowed to) transmit and receive…data and instructions to or from the security platform 200, web content, such as, for example…web page content, according to…Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and/or the like,” the ability for the user device to communicate with the security platform 200 via HTTP suggests that a link to upload can be acquired, or obtained).
However, Polasa in view of Caldwell do not explicitly teach
signing the upload link.
Krajicek discloses a system and method for storing, delivering, and screening visual media. Specifically, Krajicek discloses
signing the upload link ([0022] – “The rightsholder 3 – uses a signed upload link to upload a file to a proxy storage,” thereby suggesting the action of signing the upload link occurred).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polasa in view of Caldwell’s management of digital content with the teachings of a signed upload link in Krajicek. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable a secure end-to-end solution for digital media Krajicek, [0011].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698