DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 05/22/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1, 6, and 11, and 15, claims 12–14 are cancelled, and claims 16–25 are newly introduced. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11 and 15 and cancelling claims 12–14 are sufficient to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 6 are sufficient to overcome the previous prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. Therefore, a new search was conducted based upon the clarification introduced to the claim language, which resulted in the identification of a new reference that currently serves as the basis for a new anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. The change in the primary reference has affected the combination of references in the obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. All claims, including the new claims, have been mapped below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6. All arguments have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees that the previous reference serving as the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 fails to teach all aspects and clarifications introduced in the presently amended claim language. As mentioned above, a new search was conducted and new rejections are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4–7, 17, 21, 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castinado (US 2023/0009908 A1, published Jan. 12, 2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Overall discloses: a verification system comprising a processor configured to: acquire, from a user terminal of a user, content data provided to an external information processing system providing an environment in which content can be used (a platform where a user uses the system for verification or viewing purposes and the user uploads one or more pieces of digital content. Castinado ¶ 6.); acquire, from the user terminal, relationship information indicating a relationship between the user and the content data in the environment as an author of the content data (the user device comprises a mobile application that is used to submit digital content via the application portal, which is used for identification, comparison and analysis of authenticity, ownership, custody, or permitted uses of the digital content and exists locally on the user device as an entity application 1048 or user application. Castinado ¶ 46. The Examiner notes that under the required broadest reasonable interpretation, the reference’s generation of an NFT from content originally submitted by the user would allow interpretation of the user to be the recited author, as well as the owner, in this context.), wherein the relationship information includes user evaluation information related to an evaluation of the user by users other than the user in the environment; and verify that the user is an author of the content data based on the user evaluation information indicating the evaluation of the user as the author regarding the content data (communicating with the distributed register database for identification, comparison, and analysis of authenticity, ownership, where the register data base is a distributed trust computing network of participating nodes which collectively validate information on the distributed register using a consensus algorithm executed by the distributed register nodes. Castinado ¶¶ 46 and 58–59.).
Regarding claim 4, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine verification criteria based on user information related to the user to be acquired from a predetermined information processing system, wherein the processor is configured to verify that the user is the author of the content data further based on the criteria determined (the user device comprises a mobile application that is used to submit digital content via the application portal, which is used for identification, comparison and analysis of authenticity, ownership, custody, or permitted uses of the digital content and exists locally on the user device as an entity application 1048 or user application. Castinado ¶ 46.).
Regarding claim 5, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to request, from the user terminal, the relationship information necessary for verification according to a verification result (prompt user for authentication credentials. Castinado ¶ 28.).
Regarding claim 7, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, further comprising a storage connected to the processor, wherein the processor stores the content data and the relationship information associated with the content data in the storage when the content data and the relationship information are acquired through a series of operations (facilitate storage of the digital content. Castinado ¶ 6.).
Regarding claim 17, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to verify that the user is the author in a case where the content data has been registered in the environment for more than a predetermined period before a verification date (the distributed register manages metadata related to the digital content or NFTs that includes location, time, associated party, data format, color, certificate value, hash value, private key, ownership information, wallet address, permitted uses, royalties or payments for use, and all can be used by the distributed register database for identification of ownership. Castinado ¶¶ 43 and 46.).
Regarding claim 21, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the relationship information is relationship information that is verified as valid using a blockchain technique (Castinado ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 23, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the relationship information includes signature information or digital watermark information of the user or the environment (signature validation using blockchain and the generated NFT. Castinado ¶ 6.).
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.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Hasan (US 2021/0374797 A1, published Dec. 2, 2021).
Regarding claim 8, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: further comprising a storage connected to the processor, wherein the processor stores the content data and the relationship information associated with the content data in the storage when the relationship information includes a content ID of the content data.
However, Hasan does disclose: further comprising a storage connected to the processor, wherein the processor stores the content data and the relationship information associated with the content data in the storage when the relationship information includes a content ID of the content data (detection and tagging of media content generating and embedding hashtags (identifiers) prior to uploading and publishing content by creators on social medial platforms. Hasan ¶ 42.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with associating a unique relationship identifier to the content based upon the teachings of Hasan. The motivation being to for tracking other user’s interactions with the published content. Hasan ¶ 42.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Gogate (US 2023/0359681 A1, published Nov. 9, 2023).
Regarding claim 9, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the processor is configured to acquire, from the user terminal, additional relationship information indicating a relationship between the user and the content data in the environment when the verification fails; and verify that the user is an author of the content data based on the additional relationship information.
However, Gogate does disclose: wherein the processor is configured to acquire, from the user terminal, additional relationship information indicating a relationship between the user and the content data in the environment when the verification fails; and verify that the user is an author of the content data based on the additional relationship information (misattribution can be overridden and attribution of original content can be assigned based upon a variety of factors outside of direct user provenance and can be determined other attributes and confidence factors, such as time of creation, platform on which content was first shared. Gogate ¶ 58.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with relying on alternative means of attribution when verification of authorship fails based upon the teachings of Gogate. The motivation being to correct misattributions. Gogate ¶ 4.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Gogate in view of Overall.
Regarding claim 10, Castinado in view of Gogate discloses the limitations of claim 9. Castinado in view of Gogate does not disclose: wherein the processor is configured to: extract the additional relationship information from a list of pieces of relationship information that can be provided from the user terminal; and request the user terminal to provide the additional relationship information.
However, Overall does disclose: wherein the processor is configured to: extract the additional relationship information from a list of pieces of relationship information that can be provided from the user terminal; and request the user terminal to provide the additional relationship information (relationship data is collected from the creator interface, unique identification and other preliminary data, which enables metric data to be extracted related to the creator’s profile and the creator’s content published on the websites. Overall ¶¶ 52 and 54. Additionally, creator 50 can be prompted to grant the brand 60 authority to access private data held by third-party platforms for use as preliminary relational data. Overall ¶ 52.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with extracting additional relationship information from pieces of relationship information from the terminal based upon the teachings of Overall. The motivation being to protect the ownership rights of the user.
Claims 11, 15, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Overall (US 2022/0405795 A1, published Dec. 22, 2022).
Regarding claim 11, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the user evaluation information includes number of times of registration of the user by users other than the user in the environment and number of times of "good" feedback given to the user by users other than the user in the environment.
However, Overall does disclose: wherein the user evaluation information includes number of times of registration of the user by users other than the user in the environment and number of times of "good" feedback given to the user by users other than the user in the environment (processing generates metric data using models and algorithms that pertain to a creator’s credentials as content creator and is exemplified by data including number of followers and follower interaction rates, such as number of likes in a finite time period. Overall ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the user using the number of times of registration of the user by users other than the user and number of positive feedback give to the user by other users based upon the teachings of Overall. The motivation being to protect the ownership rights of the user.
Regarding claim 15, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the user evaluation information includes number of times of channel registration of the user by users other than the user in the environment.
However, Overall does disclose: wherein the user evaluation information includes number of times of channel registration of the user by users other than the user in the environment (Overall ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the user using the number times of channel registration of the user by other users based upon the teachings of Overall. The motivation being to protect the ownership rights of the user.
Regarding claim 20, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the user evaluation information further includes a number of "mates" or "friends" connected to the user in the environment.
However, Overall does disclose: wherein the user evaluation information further includes a number of "mates" or "friends" connected to the user in the environment (Overall ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the user friend connections based upon the teachings of Overall. The motivation being to protect the ownership rights of the user.
Claims 16, 18, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Bertonlin (US 2024/0126912 A1, published Apr. 18, 2024).
Regarding claim 16, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the processor is further configured to, when a plurality of pieces of relationship information contradict each other, perform the verification by recognizing relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information.
However, Bertolino does disclose: wherein the processor is further configured to, when a plurality of pieces of relationship information contradict each other, perform the verification by recognizing relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information (resolving conflicts in verification data by allowing receipt of only the first set of verification information. Bertolino ¶ 79.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with determining the correct authentication information by using the oldest authentication information based upon the teachings of Bertolino. The motivation being to removing duplicates and flagging inconsistencies in the authentication record. Bertolino ¶ 78.
Regarding claim 18, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein in a case where a plurality of acquired pieces of relationship information contradict each other, the processor is configured to recognize a piece of relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information to verify the author.
However, Bertolino does disclose: wherein in a case where a plurality of acquired pieces of relationship information contradict each other, the processor is configured to recognize a piece of relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information to verify the author (resolving conflicts in verification data by allowing receipt of only the first set of verification information. Bertolino ¶ 79.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with determining the correct authentication information by using the oldest authentication information based upon the teachings of Bertolino. The motivation being to removing duplicates and flagging inconsistencies in the authentication record. Bertolino ¶ 78.
Regarding claim 24, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein in a case where a plurality of acquired pieces of relationship information contradict each other, the processor is configured to recognize a piece of relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information.
However, Bertolino does disclose: wherein in a case where a plurality of acquired pieces of relationship information contradict each other, the processor is configured to recognize a piece of relationship information having an older generation date and time as correct relationship information (resolving conflicts in verification data by allowing receipt of only the first set of verification information. Bertolino ¶ 79.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with determining the correct authentication information by using the oldest authentication information based upon the teachings of Bertolino. The motivation being to removing duplicates and flagging inconsistencies in the authentication record. Bertolino ¶ 78.
Claims 19, 22, 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 10,015,324 B2, issued Jul. 3, 2018).
Regarding claim 19, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: further comprising a verification criteria determination unit configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a payment history of the user, wherein the processor is configured to verify that the user is the author further based on the evaluated credit.
However, Gopalakrishnan does disclose: further comprising a verification criteria determination unit configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a payment history of the user, wherein the processor is configured to verify that the user is the author further based on the evaluated credit (performing a credit check on the user to verify the identity of the user. Gopalakrishnan 10:31–34.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the credit of the user based on a payment history to verify the user identity based upon the teachings of Gopalakrishnan. The motivation being using a third party to assist in verification of a user identity. Gopalakrishnan 4:37–54.
Regarding claim 22, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the processor is configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a use frequency of the user in the environment, and to verify that the user is the author based on the evaluated credit.
However, Gopalakrishnan does disclose: wherein the processor is configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a use frequency of the user in the environment, and to verify that the user is the author based on the evaluated credit (performing a credit check on the user to verify the identity of the user. Gopalakrishnan 10:31–34.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the credit of the user based on a payment history to verify the user identity based upon the teachings of Gopalakrishnan. The motivation being using a third party to assist in verification of a user identity. Gopalakrishnan 4:37–54.
Regarding claim 25, Castinado discloses the limitations of claim 1. Castinado does not disclose: wherein the processor is configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a number of connections of the user in the environment, and to verify that the user is the author in a case where the number of connections is larger than a predetermined threshold.
However, Gopalakrishnan does disclose: wherein the processor is configured to evaluate a credit of the user based on a number of connections of the user in the environment, and to verify that the user is the author in a case where the number of connections is larger than a predetermined threshold (performing a credit check on the user to verify the identity of the user. Gopalakrishnan 10:31–34.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify platform for receiving user authored content and managing ownership and authentication of the author of Castinado with evaluating the credit of the user based on a payment history to verify the user identity based upon the teachings of Gopalakrishnan. The motivation being using a third party to assist in verification of a user identity. Gopalakrishnan 4:37–54.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights