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 action is in reply to the amendment filed on 7/28/2025.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Domestic Benefit/International Priority
The ADS dated 8/08/2023 claims the benefit of PCT/JP2021/045198 (filed 12/08/2021) and priority to JP 2021137443 (filed 8/25/2021).
Information Disclosure Statement
All references listed in the IDS documents dated 5/14/2025, 6/05/2025, 6/09/2025, 7/22/2025, and 8/01/2025 have been considered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The present amendment to the title of the invention obviates the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to Claim 12 and cancellation of Claim 13 obviate the previous 112(b) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first nominally argues that Claim 1 is subject matter eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Examiner notes for completeness that the first substantive assertion under this opening actually comprise a conclusory statement that Applicant disagrees with the previous Office Action’s findings that previously drafted limitations recite abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One. However, as Applicant fails to explain this purported disagreement or supports this assertion in any way, Examiner finds this to be a bare conclusory statement and an improper argument, providing Examiner with no understanding of Applicant’s thought process and nothing particular to which he may respond. As such, this topic will not be addressed further.
Continuing with nominal Prong Two arguments which actually relate to the standards of Prong One, Applicant cites several newly drafted limitations of the independent claims (specifically, the server-based acquisition of biometric information and an identity verification document of a user to be registered, verification of the identity of said user by way of one-to-one authentication using biometric information, and generation of a user ID to identify the user based on said verification being successful), asserting absent any particular discussion of any of these limitations that they “require technical complexity that goes far beyond the operations that can be performed mentally, even with use of pen and paper,” “[f]urther, the features do not cover fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people,” and “[m]oreover, these features are not mathematical operations.” These respective assertions are likewise presented in a conclusory manner, absent any explanation or analysis. With the exception of the abstract category of mathematical concepts, an abstract category which was not found to be precited previously and remains unrecited presently, Examiner disagrees.
Regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, the receipt of a registration request (including acquisition of user information associated therewith), the verification of user identity based on one-to-one comparison of biometric information, and the generation of an account (including a user ID) based on success of said verification are all basic and ubiquitous steps required before engaging in many types of commercial transactions and record keeping, such as those described in the present invention (ie: maintaining transparent records of ownership and maintenance histories of objects such as art). Given this, it is beyond Examiner’s understanding how Applicant can reasonably assert that these steps do not recite commercial or legal activity. Further, as claimed, these steps also fall within the bounds of at least following rules or instructions. As such, these limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding mental processes, there is nothing inherently technological about any of these steps. Each of these functions may be performed in the same way manually (particularly, they may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper) to achieve the same results. Merely claiming such steps at a high level as being performed by a server apparatus does not make this otherwise (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As such, these limitations recite mental processes.
Applicant next temporarily leaves the standards of Step 2A, and invokes the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration of Step 2B. Applicant’s argument misapprehends this standard and to what it applies. An inventive concept under Step 2B, including via the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration, cannot stem from any recited judicial exceptions (such as abstract ideas). An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As noted above, the features argued by Applicant recite abstract ideas rather than additional elements. As such, whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional is entirely irrelevant.
Returning now to the standards of Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant next asserts that “[t]he claimed features improve the functioning of the system by performing authentication using biometric information and biometric information written on an identity verification document. These features address the technical problem by providing objective verification of parties. These features were not possible with related systems, and thereby directly relate to a technical improvement.” This argument does no more than reiterate the functionality claimed in the argued limitations (e.g., “performing authentication using biometric information…”), vaguely asserting that this “improve[s] the functioning of the system.” Examiner disagrees, finding that the argued limitations are precisely the type of claiming of abstract steps performed at a high level by computer elements which was argued and refuted by the Supreme Court in the seminal Alice case. Applicant asserts that these features “address the technical problem,” yet fails to identify what this technical problem is or how it is addressed. The asserted result of “providing objective verification of parties” is a purely abstract endeavor rather than a technological one, and as such does not constitute a technological improvement (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a): improvements to a technology constitute “technological solution to a technological problem;” “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). Lastly, Applicant’s assertion that “[t]hese features were not possible with related systems” is entirely unexplained and unsupported (again constituting a conclusory statement and an improper argument), and further appears to be untrue. The performance of these argued abstract features by computer elements merely require the technical processes of data processing, storage, and transmission, which constitute the most basic and ubiquitous functions of any standard computing device at Applicant’s effective filing date; as such, “related systems” were certainly capable of performing these steps.
Applicant lastly returns to the consideration of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B. This reiteration of arguments in relation to this standard adds nothing of substance, merely quoting language of the MPEP which generally discusses the existence of this standard and another conclusory statement that the claims are eligible based on this standard. This remains unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
Examiner makes a final observation, refuting a statement made in Applicant’s wrap-up section to the present 101 Remarks. Particularly regarding the statement therein that “independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea,” even if Applicant’s arguments to that effect were persuasive (which, to be clear, they are not – see above), this statement would remain untrue based on the limitations of Claim 1 which were previously found to recite abstract ideas. These same limitations, which remain present in Claim 1, continue to do so in the same way as described in the previous 101 rejections (and further reiterated in the present 101 rejections).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Regarding the limitations presently rolled up and expanded from now-cancelled Claim 2, Applicant quotes Paragraph 0075 of Shimanaka (an incomplete portion of the citation thereof used against this limitation in combination with passages of Moss-Pultz), asserting that Shimanaka “discloses registering an image of an item, an image of an appraisal certificate, and owner information on a blockchain” but does not disclose “generating a new appraisal certificate from an object fingerprint, an owner’s biometric information, and appraisal results obtained from an appraisal certificate.” Examiner disagrees, noting that references need to use the same terminology to describe the same content. Shimanaka as cited clearly discloses the appraisal of the item by an appraiser who issues an appraisal certificate, and the subsequent registry of this information, in conjunction with other item and owner information, into the information management system. This registration of the appraisal certificate with other item and owner information into the item history blockchain managed by said system constitutes the generation of “a public appraisal certificate.” The particular item information claimed as being included with this public appraisal certificate are disclosed via a combination of Shimanaka and Moss-Pultz as previously and presently cited.
The remaining 103 arguments are based on newly drafted limitations, and further are moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
Independent Claim 12, a method claim, contains the following limitation: “generating, by the server apparatus, in a case where an electronic signature attached to the worksheet included in the appraisal certificate registration request is successfully verified and an ownership certificate of the item is written on the electronic bulletin board, a public appraisal certificate including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item and the result of the appraisal.” This limitation constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim, and as such is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 for more information. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation is treated as if it had patentable weight.
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 3-4 and 7-9 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.
In Claims 3 and 7, it is unclear as drafted whether the terms “a/the signature” are intended to relate back to the “electronic signature” of Claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, all instances of “a/the signature” in Claims 3 and 7 will be interpreted as “the electronic signature,” with this signature being interpreted as narrowed to a signature of the appraiser or the restorer, respectively.
Claims 3 and 7 contain the following limitations, respectively: “wherein the server apparatus generates the public appraisal certificate when the signature of the appraiser is successfully verified” and “wherein the server apparatus generates the public restoration certificate when the signature of the restorer is successfully verified.” It is unclear as drafted whether the verifications in these limitations are intended to relate back to the verification disclosed in the language “…in a case where an electronic signature attached to the worksheet included in the appraisal certificate registration request is successfully verified and an ownership certificate of the item is written on the electronic bulletin board…” of Claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as reiterating and further narrowing the verification already claimed in Claim 1.
In Claims 4 and 8, it is unclear as drafted whether the term “a/the client” are intended to indicate the same entity as “a/the user” of Claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, each instance of “a/the client” will be interpreted as “the user” in light of the original disclosure. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependence upon Claim 8.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the limitations of acquiring biometric information of a user to be registered and an identity verification document of the user to be registered; verifies an identity of the user to be registered by performing a one-to-one authentication using the biometric information and the biometric information written on the identity verification document; generates a user ID to identify the user to be registered, based on the identity being successfully verified; acquiring a worksheet, the worksheet including details of a work performed on an item by a person other than an owner of the item, from the person other than the owner of the item; wherein the user writes on the electronic bulletin board a work certificate including at least biometric information of the owner, an object fingerprint of the item, and the worksheet; wherein the user acquires an appraisal certificate including a result of an appraisal for the item and transmits an appraisal certificate registration request including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item, and the appraisal certificate to the server apparatus; and wherein the server apparatus, in a case where an electronic signature attached to the worksheet included in the appraisal certificate registration request is successfully verified and an ownership certificate of the item is written on the electronic bulletin board, generates a public appraisal certificate including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item and the result of the appraisal, writes a first transaction including the generated public appraisal certificate on the electronic bulletin board and transmits a first transaction ID corresponding to the first transaction to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of acquiring biometric information of a user to be registered and an identity verification document of the user to be registered; verifies an identity of the user to be registered by performing a one-to-one authentication using the biometric information and the biometric information written on the identity verification document; generates a user ID to identify the user to be registered, based on the identity being successfully verified; acquiring a worksheet, the worksheet including details of a work performed on an item by a person other than an owner of the item, from the person other than the owner of the item; wherein the user writes on the electronic bulletin board a work certificate including at least biometric information of the owner, an object fingerprint of the item, and the worksheet; wherein the user acquires an appraisal certificate including a result of an appraisal for the item and transmits an appraisal certificate registration request including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item, and the appraisal certificate to the server apparatus; and wherein the server apparatus, in a case where an electronic signature attached to the worksheet included in the appraisal certificate registration request is successfully verified and an ownership certificate of the item is written on the electronic bulletin board, generates a public appraisal certificate including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item and the result of the appraisal, writes a first transaction including the generated public appraisal certificate on the electronic bulletin board and transmits a first transaction ID corresponding to the first transaction to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising a user terminal, a server apparatus, and a plurality of ledger nodes that provides an electronic bulletin board. In the context of the claims as a whole, these amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-11, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 3 discloses wherein the user terminal acquires the appraisal certificate with a signature of an appraiser who has performed an appraisal of the item (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); transmits the appraisal certificate registration request including the appraisal certificate with the signature of the appraiser to the server apparatus (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the server apparatus generates the public appraisal certificate when the signature of the appraiser is successfully verified (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses further comprising an appraiser terminal (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) that acquires an ownership right certificate including the object fingerprint of the item and the biometric information of the owner (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); wherein the appraiser terminal performs an object authentication using an object fingerprint acquired from the item to be appraised and the object fingerprint described in the ownership right certificate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); performs a biometric authentication using biometric information acquired from a client of the appraisal and the biometric information described in the ownership right certificate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and determines that the item to be verified and the client are legitimate when the object authentication and the biometric authentication are successful (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the appraisal certificate includes information to identify the appraiser (further describing the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 2), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses wherein the user terminal acquires a restoration certificate including details of a restoration to the item (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); transmits a restoration certificate registration request including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item, and the restoration certificate to the server apparatus (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); wherein the server apparatus generates a public restoration certificate including at least the biometric information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item, and the details of the restoration (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); writes a second transaction including the generated restoration certificate on the electronic bulletin board (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and transmits a second transaction ID corresponding to the second transaction to the user terminal (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein the user terminal acquires the restoration certificate with a signature of a restorer who has restored the item (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); transmits the restoration certificate registration request including the restoration certificate with the signature of the restorer to the server apparatus (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the server apparatus generates the public restoration certificate when the signature of the restorer is successfully verified (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses further comprising a restorer terminal (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) that acquires the ownership right certificate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); wherein the restorer terminal performs an object authentication using an object fingerprint acquired from the item to be restored and the object fingerprint described in the ownership right certificate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); performs a biometric authentication using biometric information acquired from a client of the restoration and the biometric information described in the ownership right certificate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and determines that the item to be verified and the client are legitimate when the object authentication and the biometric authentication are successful (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses wherein the restorer terminal acquires an object fingerprint from the item after restoration (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); transmits the restoration certificate including the object fingerprint acquired from the item after restoration to the user terminal (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); wherein the user terminal transmits the restoration certificate registration request including the object fingerprint acquired from the item after restoration to the server apparatus (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the server apparatus generates the public restoration certificate including the object fingerprint acquired from the item after restoration (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the restoration certificate includes information to identify the restorer (further describing the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 6), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses wherein the plurality of ledger nodes provides the electronic bulletin board that allows any entity to both append information and read information that is written (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and that does not erase or tamper with information once the information is written (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka (JP 2018173692) (hereafter, “Shimanaka”) in view of Moss-Pultz et al (PGPub 20210201310) (hereafter, “Moss-Pultz”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Shimanaka discloses:
a user terminal that acquires a worksheet, the worksheet including details of a work performed on an item by a person other than an owner of the item, from the person other than the owner of the item (¶ 0030-0031, 0051-0056, 0071-0079, 0082-0094; Fig. 3; an article information management system for articles such as antiques; registration information that includes a certificate image of an article certificate, which is an appraisal document issued by an appraiser, an article image, and owner information, is received from a user terminal of a user who is the owner of the article or a vendor certifying the authenticity of the article; a new block including the hash value of the article image and the owner information is added to the blockchain of a ledger management node, and the certificate image, the article image, and the hash value of the block are registered in an image database; the image database or blockchain is searched so as to provide, through a webpage or the like to someone interested in purchasing, etc., article-related information including images and owner information registered for the article);
a plurality of ledger nodes that provides an electronic bulletin board (¶ 0016, 0020, 0029, 0034, 0069, 0087-0091; Figs. 1-4, 8; an article information management system according to the present invention comprises a ledger management system for managing a block chain to which a new block is added after undergoing processing according to a predetermined consensus algorithm in which two or more nodes participate; said blockchain facilitates search and display functionalities);
wherein the user terminal acquires an appraisal certificate including a result of an appraisal for the item (¶ 0050-0051, 0071-0075, 0117; Figs. 3, 6(a); an owner of an article requests an appraisal from an antiquary merchant; and said merchant issues an expert opinion); and
writes a first transaction including the generated public appraisal certificate on the electronic bulletin board and transmits a first transaction ID corresponding to the first transaction to the user terminal (¶ 0062, 0078, 0091-0094; transactions are stored as blocks on the blockchain; the record identifier is capable of identifying the block; upon receiving the specification request from the user, the search unit transfers the received detail request to one of the ledger management nodes of the ledger management system; the search unit verifies the block and transmits the block to the requesting user).
Shimanaka additionally discloses a server apparatus that acquires information of a user to be registered and an identity verification document of the user to be registered (¶ 0030, 0075, 0077, 0119, 0139, 0154; Figs. 1, 11; article information management apparatus; server system; upon new registration, it is desirable that the article information management system 10 secure the reliability of the information to be registered by requesting the information of the user who is going to register and performing predetermined authentication or the like; an image for authentication of each of certificates certifying the authenticity of the article and the article owner information on the owner of the article are received). Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Pultz does disclose wherein the information of the user to be registered is biometric information of the user to be registered (¶ 0057-0058, 0077-0078; to begin use of the Bitmark system, a user, or “client”, first needs to create an account; a set-up wizard guides the user through the steps of creating a new account; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
Shimanaka additionally discloses verifies an identity of the user to be registered by performing a one-to-one authentication using the information and the information written on the identity verification document (¶ 0030, 0075, 0077, 0119, 0139, 0154; Figs. 1, 11; article information management apparatus; server system; upon new registration, it is desirable that the article information management system 10 secure the reliability of the information to be registered by requesting the information of the user who is going to register and performing predetermined authentication or the like; an image for authentication of each of certificates certifying the authenticity of the article and the article owner information on the owner of the article are received). Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Pultz does disclose wherein the information is biometric information (¶ 0057-0058, 0077-0078; to begin use of the Bitmark system, a user, or “client”, first needs to create an account; a set-up wizard guides the user through the steps of creating a new account; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Pultz does disclose generates a user ID to identify the user to be registered (¶ 0057-0058, 0077-0078; to begin use of the Bitmark system, a user, or “client”, first needs to create an account; a set-up wizard guides the user through the steps of creating a new account; an account number is assigned). Shimanaka additionally discloses doing so based on the identity being successfully verified (¶ 0030, 0075, 0077, 0119, 0139, 0154; Figs. 1, 11; article information management apparatus; server system; upon new registration, it is desirable that the article information management system 10 secure the reliability of the information to be registered by requesting the information of the user who is going to register and performing predetermined authentication or the like; an image for authentication of each of certificates certifying the authenticity of the article and the article owner information on the owner of the article are received).
Shimanaka additionally discloses wherein the user terminal writes on the electronic bulletin board a work certificate including at least information of the owner, an object fingerprint of the item, and the worksheet (¶ 0030-0031, 0051-0056, 0071-0079, 0082-0094; Fig. 3; an article information management system for articles such as antiques; registration information that includes a certificate image of an article certificate, which is an appraisal document issued by an appraiser, an article image, and owner information, is received from a user terminal of a user who is the owner of the article or a vendor certifying the authenticity of the article; a new block including the hash value of the article image and the owner information is added to the blockchain of a ledger management node, and the certificate image, the article image, and the hash value of the block are registered in an image database; the image database or blockchain is searched so as to provide, through a webpage or the like to someone interested in purchasing, etc., article-related information including images and owner information registered for the article). Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Pultz does disclose wherein the information of the owner is biometric information of the owner (¶ 0077; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
Shimanaka additionally discloses transmits an appraisal certificate registration request including at least the owner information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item, and the appraisal certificate to the server apparatus (¶ 0050-0055, 0071-0075, 0117; Figs. 3, 6(a); authentication image A, authentication image B, and owner information C are transmitted to the information management system). Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Plutz does disclose wherein the information of the owner is biometric information of the owner (¶ 0077; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
Shimanaka additionally discloses wherein the server apparatus, in a case where an electronic signature attached to the worksheet included in the appraisal certificate registration request is successfully verified and an ownership certificate of the item is written on the electronic bulletin board, generates a public appraisal certificate including at least the information of the owner, the object fingerprint of the item and the result of the appraisal (¶ 0050-0055, 0071-0075, 0117; Figs. 3, 6(a); authentication image A, authentication image B, and owner information C are transmitted to the information management system; the article image and the certificate image (which, as illustrated in Fig. 3, includes a signature or stamp seal) are certified as authentic; the article information management system registers the authentication images A and B thus obtained in the image DB 3 and also displays a summary (Hash A and Hash B in the drawing) of the authentication images A and B and the owner And the information C together as a new block to the block chain). Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Pultz does disclose wherein the information of the owner is biometric information of the owner (¶ 0077; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the decentralized property tracking-based owner registration and biometric information techniques of Moss-Pultz with the blockchain-based item transaction tracking and recording system of Shimanaka because the combination merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Moss-Pultz are applicable to the base device (Shimanaka), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 3, Shimanaka in view of Moss-Pultz discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka additionally discloses:
wherein the user terminal acquires the appraisal certificate with a signature of an appraiser who has performed an appraisal of the item (¶ 0050-0055; Fig. 3; an image group for authentication obtained by photographing or imaging a certificate and including a feature amount capable of individual identification of a certificate may be referred to as authentication image B; Fig. 3 illustrates the image of the appraisal certificate includes a signature or stamp seal);
transmits the appraisal certificate registration request including the appraisal certificate with the signature of the appraiser to the server apparatus (¶ 0050-0055, 0071-0075, 0117; Figs. 3, 6(a); authentication image A, authentication image B, and owner information C are transmitted to the information management system); and
wherein the server apparatus generates the public appraisal certificate when the signature of the appraiser is successfully verified (¶ 0050-0055, 0071-0075, 0082, 0117; Figs. 3, 6(a); authentication image A, authentication image B, and owner information C are transmitted to the information management system; the article image and the certificate image (which, as illustrated in Fig. 3, includes a signature or stamp seal) are certified as authentic; the article information management system registers the authentication images A and B thus obtained in the image DB 3 and also displays a summary (Hash A and Hash B in the drawing) of the authentication images A and B and the owner And the information C together as a new block to the block chain).
Regarding Claim 4, Shimanaka in view of Moss-Pultz discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka additionally discloses:
further comprising an appraiser terminal that acquires an ownership right certificate including the object fingerprint of the item and the information of the owner (¶ 0051-0055, 0078; Fig. 3; the authentication image A and the authentication image B are set in a set, for example, by being photographed by a user such as an individual or a dealer possessing the antique when the antique is proved authentic by appraisal or the like, and supplied to the information management system; the article information management system registers the authentication images A and B thus obtained in the image DB and also displays a summary (Hash A and Hash B in the drawing) of the authentication images A and B and the owner information C together as a new block to the block chain);
wherein the appraiser terminal performs an object authentication using an object fingerprint acquired from the item to be appraised and the object fingerprint described in the ownership right certificate (¶ 0022-0028, 0051-0055, 0098-0108, 0117, 0146; Fig. 3; an image matching method using a local feature amount and an algorithm verifying the consistency of the geometric arrangement of feature points are used for matching the image obtained by imaging the object fingerprint in this manner; by using such an object fingerprint authentication technique using FIBAR, it is possible to mount the instrument described in Non-Patent Document 1 on a cellular phone with a camera; the authentication image A and the authentication image B are set in a set, for example, by being photographed by a user such as an individual or a dealer possessing the antique when the antique is proved authentic by appraisal or the like, and supplied to the information management system; the article information management system registers the authentication images A and B thus obtained in the image DB and also displays a summary (Hash A and Hash B in the drawing) of the authentication images A and B and the owner information C together as a new block to the block chain; as a result, not only the information registered in the block chain but also the information registered in the image DB becomes difficult to falsify, so that the combination of "certificate and article" and the identity as each object (individual) are guaranteed, ensure legitimacy of transaction history including information on owner); and
performs an ownership authentication using owner information acquired from a client of the appraisal and the owner information described in the ownership right certificate and determines that the item to be verified and the client are legitimate when the object authentication and the owner information authentication are successful (¶ 0051-0055, 0098-0108, 0117; Fig. 3; the authentication image A and the authentication image B are set in a set, for example, by being photographed by a user such as an individual or a dealer possessing the antique when the antique is proved authentic by appraisal or the like, and supplied to the information management system; the article information management system registers the authentication images A and B thus obtained in the image DB and also displays a summary (Hash A and Hash B in the drawing) of the authentication images A and B and the owner information C together as a new block to the block chain; as a result, not only the information registered in the block chain but also the information registered in the image DB becomes difficult to falsify, so that the combination of "certificate and article" and the identity as each object (individual) are guaranteed, ensure legitimacy of transaction history including information on owner; in addition, the owner information C is transmitted to the article information management system together with the information proving the owner information C when the ownership has moved).
Shimanaka does not explicitly disclose but Moss-Plutz does disclose wherein the information of the owner is biometric information of the owner (¶ 0077; the Bitmark Account ID may be the user's driver's license photo, or may be biometrically encoded, e.g., a fingerprint, hand geometry, retinal or iris patterns, facial features, etc., which can be scanned using a smart phone's camera or other scanning device, voice patterns entered using the smart phone's voice recorder, DNA, or a combination of different unique biometric characteristics of a user).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Shimanaka in view of Moss-Pultz discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka additionally discloses wherein the appraisal certificate includes information to identify the appraiser (¶ 0062-0063, 0071-0076, 0117; Fig. 3; history of transactions (such as appraisals) of articles to be managed; the detailed information may be any one or all of the information on the appraiser who created the certificate, the assessed amount of the article, etc.; Fig. 3, etc. illustrates that the certificate image of an appraisal document includes a signature or stamp seal).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimanaka in view of Moss-Pultz discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka additionally discloses wherein the plurality of ledger nodes provides the electronic bulletin board that allows any entity to both append information and read information that is written, and that does not erase or tamper with information once the information is written (¶ 0016, 0020, 0029, 0034, 0069, 0087-0091; Figs. 1-4, 8; a ledger management system for managing a block chain to which a new block is added after undergoing processing according to a predetermined consensus algorithm in which two or more nodes participate; blockchain technology allows for reading and appending information written therein while not erasing or tampering with information once it has been written).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka in view of Moss-Pultz and Biggs (PGPub 20220358469) (hereafter, “Biggs”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimanaka in view of