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 .
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.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 17-29 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance on 01/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-25, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 21 recite the limitation " the SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms" in the “generating” element of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claims 18-20, 22-25, 28 and 29, the claims do not cure the deficiency of claims 17 and 21 and are rejected under 35 USC § 112 for their dependency upon claims 17 and 21.
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, 9, 17-23, 25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0326291 to Gupta et al. (hereinafter Gupta) in view of US 2020/0396075 to Visegrady et al. (hereinafter Visegrady) in view of US 2024/0070306 to Jurat et al. (hereinafter Jurat) in further view of US 20230410072 A1 to Perna et al. (hereinafter Perna).
As to claim 1, Gupta teaches a computerized method of generating a Hybrid Non-Fungible Token (HNFT) comprising the following computational steps; generating a blockchain genesis block and a non-fungible token (NFT) (paragraphs 39 and 40, information regarding a game asset interest, such as in the form of an NFT, may be generated and created blockchain record comprising a genesis block), authenticating a server utilizing a non-fungible token naming service (NNS) (paragraphs 35 and 39, the system which creates the NFTs utilize a blockchain system, to create a secure/auditable record of information).
Gupta does not explicitly teach the service utilizing zero knowledge proofs (ZKPs) to verify and validate said server, said server now being an authenticated server.
However, Visegrady teaches utilizing zero knowledge proofs (ZKPs) to verify and validate said server, said server now being an authenticated server (paragraphs 2 and 65, use of ZKPs for verifying and validating the networked devices, therefore including the claimed server as servers are networked devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta to include the method of utilizing Zero Knowledge Proofs to verify and validate the networked processing systems as taught by Visegrady in order to authenticate the identity of the networked devices, therefore optimizing the security and integrity of the system.
Gupta and Visegrady do not explicitly teach generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collected personal identifiable information (PII), said PII comprising a plurality of forensic elements collected by contact with an individual in a trusted facility where biometric data is collected and hashing the PII using SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms; and storing the forensic cryptographic hash in a computer memory of the authenticated server.
However, Jurat teaches generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collected personal identifiable information (PII), said PII comprising a plurality of forensic elements collected by contact with an individual in a trusted facility where biometric data is collected and hashing the PII using SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms (paragraphs 39 and 55, data collection module 201 may collect, e.g., in real-time or near real-time, videos or one or more images of user 101 from sensor 107, e.g., image sensors, cameras, etc., to collect biometric data, e.g., fingerprints, facial images, etc.; paragraph 56, generated and stored hash; wherein the hash can be used for forensic applications as it is generated using biometric data, device data and/or historical data including financial and criminal data [paragraphs 39 and 40]); and storing the forensic cryptographic hash in a computer memory of the authenticated server (paragraph 56, generated dynamic NFTs using the biometric data, wherein the authentication platform may mint, on a distributed blockchain, the dynamic NFTs, which includes validating the NFT, creating a new block and recording the NFT into the blockchain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta and Visegrady to include the method for blockchain-based non-fungible tokens authentication as taught by Visegrady in order to provide a more efficient and smooth registration or creation process for the user when generating an NFT, thus increasing the overall user-friendliness of the system (paragraph 2).
Gupta, Visegrady and Jurat do not explicitly teach encoding said forensic cryptographic hash into a digital media file using steganography and combining the encoded forensic cryptographic hash with the NFT, thereby generating the HNFT; and storing said HNFT in the genesis block of the blockchain for verifying subsequent secure network transactions.
However, Perna teaches encoding said forensic cryptographic hash into a digital media file using steganography and combining the encoded forensic cryptographic hash with the NFT, thereby generating the HNFT (paragraphs 22, 23 and 31, steganographically embedding the encrypted origin token (which contains the hash) into the digital media, then minting the NFT with the embedded origin token); and storing said HNFT in the genesis block of the blockchain for verifying subsequent secure network transactions (paragraphs 23, 24, 32 and 34, minting the NFT with embedded origin token and recording it on the blockchain; blockchain record used to verify authenticity in later transactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, Visegrady and Jurat to include the method for encoding said hash into a digital media file as taught by Perna in order to prevent unauthorized persons from illicitly taking an original work minting new NFTs without the original creator’s authorization, thus optimizing the integrity and security of the system (paragraph 7).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a method that is generally related to the method of claim 1 and contain limitations similar to those discussed above in connection to claim 1 except for “generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collecting unique cybernetic data (UCD) tied to a specific individual’s computational device and hashing the UCD using the SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms”. However, Jurat teaches generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collecting unique cybernetic data (UCD) tied to a specific individual’s computational device and hashing the UCD using the SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms (paragraph 39, collection from user [claimed individual] using sensors including financial information, contextual information, etc., associated with user and data mining applications in Extended Meta Language (XML), that automatically search for and return relevant data regarding user; paragraph 56, generated and stored hash; wherein the hash can be used for forensic applications as it is generated using biometric data, device data and/or historical data including financial and criminal data [paragraphs 39 and 40]). Therefore claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 21, claim 21 is directed to a method that is generally related to the method of claim 1 and contain limitations similar to those discussed above in connection to claim 1 except for “generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collecting personal identifiable data (PID), said PID comprising a plurality of state issued documents collected by contact with an individual in a trusted facility where state issued document data is collected and hashing the PID using the SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms”. However, Jurat teaches generating a forensic cryptographic hash, derived from a collection step comprising collecting personal identifiable data (PID), said PID comprising a plurality of state issued documents collected by contact with an individual in a trusted facility where state issued document data is collected and hashing the PID using the SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, RIPEMD or Whirlpool hash algorithms (paragraph 39, collection from user [claimed individual] using sensors; paragraph 40, based on historical data including credit history information, income information, debt-to-income ratio information, online fraud information, crime information, and the like; paragraph 56, generated and stored hash; wherein the hash can be used for forensic applications as it is generated using biometric data, device data and/or historical data including financial and criminal data [paragraphs 39 and 40]). Therefore claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Jurat teaches wherein said biometric data comprises at least a plurality of the following; a fingerprint, a photograph, a DNA sample, physical height, a birthdate, facial recognition, or a retina scan (paragraphs 39 and 55, data collection module 201 may collect, e.g., in real-time or near real-time, videos or one or more images of user 101 from sensor 107, e.g., image sensors, cameras, etc., to collect biometric data, e.g., fingerprints, facial images, etc.).
As to claim 9, Perna teaches the digital media file is of a type comprising digital media file formats, including but not limited to jpg, bmp, wmf, tiff, gif or an audio file format including but not limited to wav, mp3, bwf, or an audio interchange file format (AIFF) or a video file format including but not limited to mp4, mov, wmv, avi or an office productivity file format(s) including but not limited to, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, xls, xlsx (paragraphs 3 and 23, an electronic image, such as a JPEG file; digital media can take many forms including text, images, video, audio and the like).
As to claim 18, Jurat teaches wherein said Unique Cybernetic Data (UCD) includes a plurality of unique computing system attributes including; computer serial number, a memory device serial number, a (Media Access Controller) MAC address of a network controller, and further including (Central Processing Unit) CPU type, (Universally Unique Identifier) UUID and a system board serial number (paragraph 40, the authentication may be performed through the automated association of blockchain 115 and database 117 with an IP address, a carrier detection signal of UE 103, mobile directory number (MDN), subscriber identity module (SIM) (e.g., of a SIM card) [SIM includes a serial number], radiofrequency identifier (RFID) tag or other device identifiers).
As to claim 19, Perna teaches the digital media file is of a type comprising digital media file formats, including but not limited to jpg, bmp, wmf, tiff, gif or an audio file format including but not limited to wav, mp3, bwf, or an audio interchange file format (AIFF) or a video file format including but not limited to mp4, mov, wmv, avi or an office productivity file format(s) including but not limited to, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, xls, xlsx (paragraphs 3 and 23, an electronic image, such as a JPEG file; digital media can take many forms including text, images, video, audio and the like).
As to claim 20, Jurat teaches wherein the Unique Cybernetic Data (UCD) includes a Cell Phone Hardware ID, or a Cell Phone (International Mobile Equipment Identity) IMEI (HASH) value (paragraph 40, the authentication may be performed through the automated association of blockchain 115 and database 117 with an IP address, a carrier detection signal of UE 103, mobile directory number (MDN), subscriber identity module (SIM) (e.g., of a SIM card) [SIM includes a serial number and an integrated circuit card identification], radiofrequency identifier (RFID) tag or other device identifiers).
As to claim 22, Jurat teaches wherein said PID includes at least a plurality of a valid driver’s license, a valid state issued photo id, a valid birth certificate with a raised seal, an arrest record, a credit report or further including personally identifiable data (PID) from a credit report, valid passport or personal identifiable information including personal financial information (paragraph 40, determine eligibility of user 101 based, at least in part, on historical user information. In one instance, historical user information may include credit history information, income information, debt-to-income ratio information, online fraud information, crime information, and the like).
As to claim 23, Perna teaches the digital media file is of a type comprising digital media file formats, including but not limited to jpg, bmp, wmf, tiff, gif or an audio file format including but not limited to wav, mp3, bwf, or an audio interchange file format (AIFF) or a video file format including but not limited to mp4, mov, wmv, avi or an office productivity file format(s) including but not limited to, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, xls, xlsx (paragraphs 3 and 23, an electronic image, such as a JPEG file; digital media can take many forms including text, images, video, audio and the like).
As to claims 25, 27 and 29, Perna teaches the hashing of the PID further includes using the SHA-256 hash algorithm (paragraph 29, in addition to SHA hashes).
Claims 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Visegrady in view of Jurat in view of Perna in further view of US 20220309491 A1 to Shapiro et al. (hereinafter Shapiro).
As to claims 24, 26 and 28, Gupta, Visegrady, Jurat and Perna do not explicitly teach the zero knowledge proof further comprises a zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk-SNARK).
However, Shapiro teaches the zero knowledge proof further comprises a zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk-SNARK) (paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, Visegrady, Jurat and Perna to include the zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge as taught by Shapiro in order to allow the creator to create and submit a file embodying a creative work to a location that is referenced by an NFT with provable ownership while protecting their identity, thus optimizing the integrity and security of the system (paragraph 84).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497