DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 12/28/2023, is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 09/17/2025.
a. Claims 1, 3, 9, 16, 20-21, 41 are amended
b. Claims 2, 22, 29, 33, 36, 38, 40 are cancelled
c. Claims 42-43 are new
Overall, Claims 1, 3-21, 23-28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, and 41-43 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-21, 23-28, 32, 34, 39, 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 11075891 B1), in further view of Green (US 20240179020 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 21, 41. Long discloses:
A computer-based system for establishing an instantaneous computational value of an asset cluster, the computer-based system comprising: [see at least Fig. 1, (2/44-46) a computer-implemented method utilized by a source cacher node for implementing decentralized DRM within a decentralized network.]
a blockchain computer network including multiple nodes; [see at least Fig. 1, (2/47-49) The computer-implemented method comprises steps for broadcasting, to one or more viewer peer nodes in the decentralized network]
at least one of the multiple nodes … configured to execute a composable asset control system; [see at least (3/1-5) the computer-implemented method may further include locking, via the smart contract, a reward from the authenticated viewer peer node; and releasing, via the smart contract and to the source cacher node and the authenticated edge cacher node. (reads on: the edge cacher node can generate data stream as well as authenticate viewer)]
the composable asset control system configured to: resample, at the at least one of the multiple nodes, a non-fungible digital asset and a digital representation of a cryptographic asset; [see at least (17/22-25) when the nodes associated with users (e.g., viewer nodes) purchase tokens (e.g., the NFT virtual tickets) using cryptocurrency. (17/38-44) the source node can record relevant information to the blockchain (e.g., that a given user has possession of the NFT). Further, when the viewer node requests a data key from a source cacher node, the source cacher node can query the blockchain to determine ownership of the NFT by the viewer node (reads on: The view node can purchase data stream from the randomize nonce by purchasing a token (NFT))]
configure an asset cluster by configuring a binding secured by the blockchain computer network, the binding configured to computationally pair the resampled digital representation of the cryptographic asset and the resampled non- fungible digital asset; [see at least (18/7-20) an edge node can query the THETA blockchain to determine whether a given node, such as a downstream node, actually holds a token … the edge node can query the blockchain with the address obtained from the downstream node to determine whether the downstream node holds a given token, such as an NFT. To reduced potential large number of queries to the blockchain in this setup, guardian nodes disclosed in more detail below may be utilized. (reads on: the blockchain determine the given node actually holding the NFT by generate a randomize nonce (resampling) to the downstream node to provide the proof of node’s address)]
quantify an instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster based on a value of the cryptographic asset; and [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
encode in at least one smart contract a regulator configured to control transfer and use of the asset cluster, the regulator further configured to control the asset cluster based on the quantified instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster. [see at least (17/27-37) systems can release the locked tokens (e.g., TFUEL tokens) over a predetermined duration at a predetermined rate as specified by the smart contract, such that the nodes associated with users (e.g., the viewers) can pay nodes serving as upstream relayers (e.g., relay nodes) of content. (reads on: the smart contract can run when viewer node communicate with the DRM where payment or purchases can be made)]
Long discloses managing one or more assets, however, Long does not disclose:
including a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor embedded in a hardware security module (HSM), the secure cryptoprocessor … the composable asset control system implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM) on the secure cryptoprocessor
the secure cryptoprocessor further configured to execute a cryptographic function, the cryptographic function including verification of at least one encoded rule associated with a non-fungible digital asset,
the embedded VM … system configured to…
Nonetheless, Green uses cryptoprocessor to execute an algorithm, discloses:
including a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor embedded in a hardware security module (HSM), the secure cryptoprocessor … system implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM) on the secure cryptoprocessor (see at least [0154] a compliance enforcement system is implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM), preferably executing on one or more cryptoprocessors configured to support efficient and scalable processing of application-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-blockchain transactions … The cryptoprocessor may be a dedicated computer-on-a-chip or microprocessor for carrying out cryptographic transaction operations, embedded in a hardware security module (HSM) with security measures providing failsafe tamper resistance]
the secure cryptoprocessor further configured to execute a cryptographic function, the cryptographic function including verification of at least one encoded rule associated with a non-fungible digital asset, [see least (0150) The cryptoprocessor may be specialized to execute cryptographic algorithms within hardware to support the compliance enforcement system. Functions include such things as accelerating encryption algorithms that verify compliance of encoded rules related to an NFT asset]
the embedded VM … system configured to… [see at least (0154) a compliance enforcement system is implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM), preferably executing on one or more cryptoprocessors configured to support efficient and scalable processing of application-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-blockchain transactions.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long to include the elements of Green. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset using cryptoprocessor. Long discloses managing multiple assets. Green teaches using cryptoprocessor to execute algorithm in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and using cryptoprocessor are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long are analogous to the computer program of Green that uses cryptoprocessor along with embedded virtual machine and hardware secure module (HSM) to create a failsafe tamper resistance (see Green paragraph 0154), and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Green, Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Long, as well as Green would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Long/Green.
Regarding Claims 3, 23. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 21. Long further discloses:
the … composable asset control system is further configured to resample the non- fungible digital asset and the digital representation of the cryptographic asset by generating a first identifier (ID) for the non-fungible digital asset and a second identifier (ID) for the cryptographic asset. [see at least (16/60-67) a source edge cacher node can produce a data stream and generate a corresponding seed; further, the disclosed systems can derive a symmetric key from the seed … the disclosed systems may use two different types of keys, a transaction key pair for signing blockchain transactions (such as authenticating ownership of the NFT]
The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets using cryptoprocessor, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
… embedded VM … system
Nonetheless, Green further discloses implementing embedded VM:
… embedded VM … system [see at least (0154) system is implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM), preferably executing on one or more cryptoprocessors configured to support efficient and scalable processing of application-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-blockchain transactions]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the additional elements of Green. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset using cryptoprocessor. Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Green teaches implementing an embedded virtual machine (VM) in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and using an embedded virtual machine are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long are analogous to the computer program of Green that uses cryptoprocessor along with embedded virtual machine and hardware secure module (HSM) to create a failsafe tamper resistance (see Green paragraph 0154), and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Green, Moreover, the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 24. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 3, 23. Long further discloses:
the first identifier (ID) includes a first cryptographic hash value; and the second identifier (ID) includes a second cryptographic hash value. {see at least (16/60-67) a source edge cacher node can produce a data stream and generate a corresponding seed; further, the disclosed systems can derive a symmetric key from the seed. (reads on: the source node can generate seeds (first ID and second ID from) from the symmetric key corresponding to the encrypted/decrypted data)]
Regarding Claims 5, 25. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 21. Long further discloses:
wherein: the regulator is further configured to computationally assign at least one attribute of the asset cluster. [see at least (8/24-27) A given NFT has its own unique information, attributes, or characteristics, such as permanent, unalterable metadata that describes or defines its authenticity.]
Regarding Claims 6, 26. Long discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 25. Long further discloses:
wherein: the at least one attribute of the asset cluster includes: (i) metadata relating to recordation of the asset cluster on the blockchain computer network, (ii) an identifier of the at least one smart contract, (iii) another property governing the instantaneous computational value, the transfer, or the use of the asset cluster, (iv) data governing use of the non-fungible digital asset in a gaming application, or (v) a combination thereof. [see at least (8/24-27) A given NFT has its own unique information, attributes, or characteristics, such as permanent, unalterable metadata that describes or defines its authenticity. An NFT is transferrable in terms of ownership.)]
Regarding Claims 7, 27. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 21. Long further discloses:
wherein: the regulator is further configured to computationally assign an owner node of the asset cluster. [see at least (08/46-51) the disclosed systems can be configured to determine, assign, reassign, and/or use tokenized virtual assets using the DRM … the disclosed systems can use the tokenized virtual assets using DRM to confer a temporal ownership (e.g., a subscription) to the virtual assets.]
Regarding Claims 8, 28. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 27. Long further discloses:
wherein: the regulator is further configured to record a pairing between a user account of the owner node and the asset cluster in an electronic ledger of the blockchain computer network. [see at least (3/7-12) a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange where ownership records are stored in a ledger existing in a form of computerized database using strong cryptography to secure transaction records, to control the creation of additional currency, and to verify the transfer of ownership.]
Regarding Claims 9, 29. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 21. Long further discloses:
wherein the composable asset control system is further configured to: iteratively quantify the instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster responsive to a change in the value of the cryptographic asset. [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
Regarding Claim 11. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the at least one of the multiple nodes is further configured to operate in connection with other nodes of the multiple nodes of the blockchain computer network. [see at least (4/18-22) steps of broadcasting, to one or more viewer peer nodes in the decentralized network, a notification of the source cacher node's intent to transmit a data stream, where the decentralized network comprises a plurality of peer nodes connected via peer-to-peer (P2P) connections.]
Regarding Claim 12. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further disclose:
wherein the instantaneous computational value is a minimum value. [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green does not explicitly disclose instantaneous computational value is a minimum value. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 13. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the cryptographic asset includes at least a unit of cryptocurrency. [see at least (8/21-31) A “non-fungible token” or “NFT” is a cryptographic asset … other “fungible” cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are identical to each other and can be traded or exchanged as identical units and are usually infinitely subdividable]
Regarding Claim 14. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Long further discloses:
an online application configured to present an environment that supports utilization of, or exchange of, the asset cluster or a component thereof; and [see at least (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program (reads on: online application). For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer]
wherein the at least one of the multiple nodes is further configured to interface with the online application [see at least Figs. 7-8 (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program. For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer (reads on: online store is an online application) (20/53-57) one or more end user computing entities 700, one or more networks, and one or more CDN, tracker server, payment server, or other management computing entities 800, as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. (reads on: Fig. 7, Network and Communication interface 722 which used to interact with the application)]
Regarding Claim 15. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the at least one of the multiple nodes is further configured to interface with an application or a website of an asset transaction facilitation platform. [see at least (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program. For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer (reads on: online store is an online application)]
Regarding Claim 18. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long discloses:
wherein the instantaneous computational value is equal to the value of the cryptographic asset. [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green does not explicitly disclose instantaneous computational value is equal to the value of the cryptographic asset. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 19. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the cryptographic asset includes a fungible token native to an electronic ledger of the blockchain computer network. [see at least (8/21-31) A “non-fungible token” or “NFT” is a cryptographic asset, cryptographic token, or digital ledger object that is recorded on a blockchain … An NFT is transferrable in terms of ownership. In contrast, other “fungible” cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are identical to each other and can be traded or exchanged as identical units and are usually infinitely subdividable. (reads on: cryptographic assets include non-fungible and fungible asset)]
Regarding Claim 20. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the … composable asset control system is further configured to: configure the binding secured by the blockchain computer network by recording a data structure to a data repository secured by the blockchain computer network, the data structure including an identifier of the resampled non-fungible digital asset and an identifier of the resampled digital representation of the cryptographic asset. [see at least (18/7-20) an edge node can query the THETA blockchain to determine whether a given node, such as a downstream node, actually holds a token … the edge node can query the blockchain with the address obtained from the downstream node to determine whether the downstream node holds a given token, such as an NFT. To reduced potential large number of queries to the blockchain in this setup, guardian nodes disclosed in more detail below may be utilized. (reads on: the blockchain determine the given node actually holding the NFT by generate a randomize nonce (resampling) to the downstream node to provide the proof of node’s address)]
The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets using cryptoprocessor, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
… embedded VM … system
Nonetheless, Green further discloses implementing embedded VM:
… embedded VM … system [see at least (0154) system is implemented as an embedded virtual machine (VM), preferably executing on one or more cryptoprocessors configured to support efficient and scalable processing of application-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-blockchain transactions]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the additional elements of Green. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset using cryptoprocessor. Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Green teaches implementing an embedded virtual machine (VM) in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and using an embedded virtual machine are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long are analogous to the computer program of Green that uses cryptoprocessor along with embedded virtual machine and hardware secure module (HSM) to create a failsafe tamper resistance (see Green paragraph 0154), and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Green, Moreover, the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 32. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Long further discloses:
including iteratively quantifying the instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster responsive to a change in the value of the cryptographic asset; {see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
wherein the instantaneous computational value is a minimum value. [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green does not explicitly disclose instantaneous computational value is a minimum value. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
wherein the cryptographic asset includes at least a unit of cryptocurrency. [see at least (8/21-31) A “non-fungible token” or “NFT” is a cryptographic asset … other “fungible” cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are identical to each other and can be traded or exchanged as identical units and are usually infinitely subdividable]
Regarding Claim 34. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Long further discloses:
configuring the at least one of the multiple nodes to operate in connection with other nodes of the multiple nodes of the blockchain computer network; [see at least (4/18-22) steps of broadcasting, to one or more viewer peer nodes in the decentralized network, a notification of the source cacher node's intent to transmit a data stream, where the decentralized network comprises a plurality of peer nodes connected via peer-to-peer (P2P) connections.]
interfacing, via the at least one of the multiple nodes, with an online application; and within an environment presented by the online application, [see at least Figs. 7-8 (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program. For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer (reads on: online store is an online application) (20/53-57) one or more end user computing entities 700, one or more networks, and one or more CDN, tracker server, payment server, or other management computing entities 800, as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. (reads on: Fig. 7, Network and Communication interface 722 which used to interact with the application)]
performing at least one of: (i) utilizing the asset cluster or a component thereof and (ii) exchanging the asset cluster or the component thereof. [see at least (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program. For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer]
Regarding Claim 39. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Long further discloses:
including configuring the binding secured by the blockchain computer network by recording a data structure to a data repository secured by the blockchain computer network, the data structure including an identifier of the resampled non-fungible digital asset and an identifier of the resampled digital representation of the cryptographic asset; [see at least (18/7-20) an edge node can query the THETA blockchain to determine whether a given node, such as a downstream node, actually holds a token … the edge node can query the blockchain with the address obtained from the downstream node to determine whether the downstream node holds a given token, such as an NFT. To reduced potential large number of queries to the blockchain in this setup, guardian nodes disclosed in more detail below may be utilized. (reads on: the blockchain determine the given node actually holding the NFT by generate a randomize nonce (resampling) to the downstream node to provide the proof of node’s address)]
wherein the cryptographic asset includes a fungible token native to an electronic ledger of the blockchain computer network. [see at least (8/21-31) A “non-fungible token” or “NFT” is a cryptographic asset, cryptographic token, or digital ledger object that is recorded on a blockchain … An NFT is transferrable in terms of ownership. In contrast, other “fungible” cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are identical to each other and can be traded or exchanged as identical units and are usually infinitely subdividable. (reads on: cryptographic assets include non-fungible and fungible asset)]
Regarding Claim 42. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Long further discloses:
wherein the cryptographic function is an accelerated encryption function. [see at least (9/63-65) the content can be encrypted using any suitable protocol, including, but not limited to, an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES-128).]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green does not explicitly disclose cryptographic function is an accelerated encryption function. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 43. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Green further discloses:
wherein the cryptographic function further includes at least one of: (i) enhanced tamper detection, (ii) enhanced intrusion detection, (iii) enhanced data protection, (iv) enhanced key protection, (v) security enhanced memory access, and (vi) security enhanced input/output (I/O). [see at least (0154) The cryptoprocessor may be a dedicated computer-on-a-chip or microprocessor for carrying out cryptographic transaction operations, embedded in a hardware security module (HSM) with security measures providing failsafe tamper resistance.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the additional elements of Green. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset using cryptoprocessor. Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Green teaches implementing an embedded virtual machine (VM) in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and using an embedded virtual machine are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long are analogous to the computer program of Green that uses cryptoprocessor along with embedded virtual machine and hardware secure module (HSM) to create a failsafe tamper resistance (see Green paragraph 0154), and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Green, Moreover, the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10, 17, 30, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Green, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Cella (US 20220366494 A1).
Regarding Claims 10, 30. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 21. The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
wherein: the at least one of the multiple nodes is further configured to execute an automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system,
the automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system configured to facilitate a transaction with the at least one of the multiple nodes by:
upon receipt, at the at least one of the multiple nodes, of an exchange asset having an asset value that is equal to or greater than the instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster, transferring an ownership interest in the asset cluster to the automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system.
However, Cella discloses executing program using multiple nodes:
wherein: the at least one of the multiple nodes is further configured to execute an automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system, [see at least (1996) platform 20500 provides for automated market makers (AMMs) that are participants to provide liquidity to the market.]
the automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system configured to facilitate a transaction with the at least one of the multiple nodes by: [see at least (1839) a smart contract 20232 may include executable logic, data, and/or information related to facilitating a marketplace transaction. (1840) the smart contracts may be generated by expert users (e.g., smart contract developers) that are associated with customers or the platform 20500]
upon receipt, at the at least one of the multiple nodes, of an exchange asset having an asset value that is equal to or greater than the instantaneous computational value of the asset cluster, transferring an ownership interest in the asset cluster to the automated market maker (AMM) cryptographic system. [see at least (1839) a smart contract 20232 may include executable logic, data, and/or information related to facilitating a marketplace transaction, including one or more triggers and one or more smart contract actions to be executed in response to indication or verification of one or more of the triggering conditions … a value of an asset or set of assets exceeds or falls below a threshold. (1840) the smart contracts may be generated by expert users (e.g., smart contract developers) that are associated with customers or the platform 20500]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the elements of Cella. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset(s) based on based on certain condition(s). Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Cella teaches executing AMM cryptographic system using multiple nodes in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and executing AMM cryptographic system using multiple nodes are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long, Green are analogous to the computer program of Cella that implements AMM cryptographic system and uses smart contract for verification and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Cella, Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Long, Green as well as Cella would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Long, Green/Cella.
Regarding Claim 17. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
wherein the at least one of the multiple nodes of the blockchain computer network is further configured to interface with an exchange platform, the exchange platform configured to implement a transaction rule that governs the transfer and the use of the asset cluster.
However, Cella discloses executing program using multiple nodes:
wherein the at least one of the multiple nodes of the blockchain computer network is further configured to interface with an exchange platform, the exchange platform configured to implement a transaction rule that governs the transfer and the use of the asset cluster. [see at least (1839) a smart contract 20232 may include executable logic, data, and/or information related to facilitating a marketplace transaction, including one or more triggers and one or more smart contract actions to be executed in response to indication or verification of one or more of the triggering conditions … a value of an asset or set of assets exceeds or falls below a threshold … payment of a defined amount of currency by one party (e.g., the buyer), verification that a party to a marketplace transaction is within a defined geographic area (e.g., a country, city, state, or the like), verification that an asset has been certified by a third-party, verification of an occurrence of a predefined market condition (reads on: rules for performing transferring assets). (1840) the smart contracts may be generated by expert users (e.g., smart contract developers) that are associated with customers or the platform 20500]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the elements of Cella. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset(s) based on based on certain condition(s). Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Cella teaches facilitating transaction of asset(s) based on certain rules in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and facilitating transaction of asset(s) based on certain rules are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long, Green are analogous to the computer program of Cella that implements a smart contract to set conditions for transferring assets and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Cella, Moreover, the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 37. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Long further discloses:
wherein the instantaneous computational value is equal to the value of the cryptographic asset. [see at least (4/5-10) generating an encrypted data stream based on the data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream, and transmitting the encrypted data stream and the data key to decrypt the data stream to the authenticated viewer peer node. (6/50-53) The encryption/decryption key may be a numeric or alphanumeric value and may be generated using an algorithm, such as a pseudorandom-number generator based algorithm or other means.]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green does not explicitly disclose instantaneous computational value is equal to the value of the cryptographic asset. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
interfacing, via the at least one of the multiple nodes, with an exchange platform, the exchange platform configured to implement a transaction rule that governs the transfer and the use of the asset cluster;
However, Cella discloses executing program using multiple nodes:
interfacing, via the at least one of the multiple nodes, with an exchange platform, the exchange platform configured to implement a transaction rule that governs the transfer and the use of the asset cluster; [see at least (1839) a smart contract 20232 may include executable logic, data, and/or information related to facilitating a marketplace transaction, including one or more triggers and one or more smart contract actions to be executed in response to indication or verification of one or more of the triggering conditions … a value of an asset or set of assets exceeds or falls below a threshold … payment of a defined amount of currency by one party (e.g., the buyer), verification that a party to a marketplace transaction is within a defined geographic area (e.g., a country, city, state, or the like), verification that an asset has been certified by a third-party, verification of an occurrence of a predefined market condition. (1840) the smart contracts may be generated by expert users (e.g., smart contract developers) that are associated with customers or the platform 20500]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the elements of Cella. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset(s) based on based on certain condition(s). Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Cella teaches facilitating transaction of asset(s) based on certain rules in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and facilitating transaction of asset(s) based on certain rules are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long, Green are analogous to the computer program of Cella that implements a smart contract to set conditions for transferring assets and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Cella, Moreover, the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Green, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Quigley (US 20230117801 A1).
Regarding Claim 16. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 1. The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
separate the non-fungible digital asset of the asset cluster from the digital representation of the cryptographic asset of the asset cluster by nullifying the binding secured by the blockchain computer network.
However, Quigley discloses secure access to assets:
separate the non-fungible digital asset of the asset cluster from the digital representation of the cryptographic asset of the asset cluster by nullifying the binding secured by the blockchain computer network. [see at least (0180) the DRM NFTs may include information that links to one or more encrypted digital assets stored separately from the DRM NFTs.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the elements of Quigley. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset(s) securely. Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Quigley teaches accessing digital assets securely in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and accessing digital assets securely are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long, Green are analogous to the computer program of Quigley that implements a secure way to access asset using DRM NFTs that links to the assets that are stored separately. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Long, Green as well as Quigley would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Long, Green/Quigley.
Regarding Claim 35. Long, Green discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Long further discloses:
interfacing, via the at least one of the multiple nodes, with an application or a website of an asset transaction facilitation platform; and [see at least (20/44-50) systems can be configured to operate in connection with a protocol to enable an online store-like blockchain-powered commerce with affiliate program. For example, the disclosed systems can be configured to permit the token (e.g., the NFT virtual ticket) to be used as an affiliation code since the token can be tied to a streamer/content producer (reads on: online store is an online application)]
The combination of Long in view of Green discloses managing multiple assets, however, the above combination of Long, Green does not disclose:
separating the non-fungible digital asset of the asset cluster from the digital representation of the cryptographic asset of the asset cluster by nullifying the binding secured by the blockchain computer network.
However, Quigley discloses secure access to assets:
separating the non-fungible digital asset of the asset cluster from the digital representation of the cryptographic asset of the asset cluster by nullifying the binding secured by the blockchain computer network. [see at least (0180) the DRM NFTs may include information that links to one or more encrypted digital assets stored separately from the DRM NFTs.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Long, Green to include the elements of Quigley. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to manage asset(s) securely. Long, Green discloses managing multiple assets. Quigley teaches accessing digital assets securely in the same or similar context. Because managing multiple assets and accessing digital assets securely are implemented through the specific use of secure computer program that manage assets. The computer program of Long, Green are analogous to the computer program of Quigley that implements a secure way to access asset using DRM NFTs that links to the assets that are stored separately. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240257242 A1 Cohen; Levy METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR DERIVATIVE TRADING ON AUTOMATED MARKET MAKER LIQUIDITY POOLS - The disclosure relates to systems, methods and computer-readable media for hedging and derivative trading in automated market maker (AMM) protocols. Specifically, the disclosure relates to systems, methods and computer-readable media for trading in future contracts of a simultaneously minted crypto assets backed tokens, issued against each crypto asset in the trading pair.
US 20230116401 A1 Nichani; Suresh SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VALUATION AND COLLATERALIZATION OF ILLIQUID ASSETS IN A BLOCKCHAIN-BASED ECOSYSTEM - Provided is a method and system for valuation and collateralization of illiquid assets in a Blockchain-based ecosystem. A price oracle system is implemented as a valuation, risk and DeFi layer that runs on top of a DeFi protocol. A live data feed engine interfaces with multiple real-world data sources to connect meaningful data to influence asset values and processes these into the correct format for a valuation engine. A valuation engine accesses real-time data feeds from the live data feed engine and a risk engine. The risk engine is a real-time risk matrix and analysis tool using machine learning algorithms that weigh a real asset and produce a risk-formatted readout for the valuation engine. The valuation engine works through real-time balancing of input and defines the price of an asset as output and communicates with a price oracle to produce real asset prices on the Blockchain.
US 20230360125 A1 KLAGES-MUNDT; Ariah Aram et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECONSTRUCTING AND COMPUTING DYNAMIC PIECEWISE FUNCTIONS ON DISTRIBUTED CONSENSUS SYSTEMS - A system for implementing a high-flexibility constant ellipse market maker (“HF-CEMM”) of a pool having reserves of a first asset class and a second asset class. The system is configured to: receive a one or more of initialization parameters including a current reserve state (x, y) of the pool, wherein x and y respectively represent a current reserve of the first asset class and the second asset class; and generate an ellipse fitted to the one or more of initialization parameters, wherein an arc of the ellipse corresponds to a trading curve, the trading curve coinciding with the current reserve state (x, y). The system can be further configured to: receive a transaction request; match a pair of Δx and Δy such that a reserve state (x+Δx, y−Δy) coincides with the trading curve; and disburse Δy of the second asset class in exchange for Δx of the first asset class.
US 20230006976 A1 Jakobsson; Bjorn Markus et al. Systems and Method for Providing Security Against Deception and Abuse in Distributed and Tokenized Environments - Systems and methods for providing security in distributed and tokenized environments in accordance with various embodiments of the invention are described. A method for bridging between blockchains, includes: bridging an entry from a first blockchain to a second blockchain, where the entry is associated with an event; determining a classification of the entry, where the classification is one of confirmed, delayed, and blocked; performing an action based on the classification of the entry; where the action includes at least one action selected from a group including: determining the classification is confirmed and recording (130) on the second blockchain the entry and removing the entry from several entries, determining the classification is blocked and removing the entry from the several entries, and determining the classification is delayed and keeping the entry for an additional time period.
US 20240104521 A1 AZGAD-TROMER; Shlomit et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPLIANCE-ENABLED DIGITALLY REPRESENTED ASSETS - A computer-implemented compliance system is provided, configured to manage transactions over a digital asset network according to a compliance policy. The digital asset network is configured to enforce rules governing recording transactions on a public ledger. The compliance system is configured to determine that a requested transaction is in compliance with the compliance policy, generate at least partially encrypted compliance relevant auxiliary information (CRAI), the CRAI comprising information configured to facilitate independent verification of the compliance, and associate at least a portion of the CRAI with transaction information stored on the public ledger and store the associated CRAI in a storage location accessible via the digital asset network
US 20230419303 A1 ARAKI; Eiji et al. VIDEO DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD, VIDEO DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING VIDEO DATA TRANSMISSION PROGRAM - A video data transmission method for transmitting video data is disclosed. The video data includes a view of a virtual space in which a plurality of avatars are allowed to participate. The plurality of avatars is each associated with one of a plurality of users. The video data transmission method according to an aspect includes the step of generating a first wallet in association with first user identification information identifying a first user and the step of granting, in response to a first acquisition request from the first user, the first user a first non-fungible asset for use in the virtual space and tokenized as non-fungible tokens. A first non-fungible token associated with the first non-fungible asset is transferred to an address of the first wallet.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being objected.
Applicant submits: “Nonetheless, Claim 29 is being canceled by way of this Amendment and, as such, the objection to Claim 29 is now moot.”
Examiner response: In light of applicant’s amendment to the claim, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “At least by virtue of reciting the above Claim 1 elements, Applicant's claimed invention is integrated into a practical application, i.e., a composable asset control system that generates and controls digital asset clusters in a secure manner. Applicant submits that the composable asset control functionality recited in amended Claim 1-e.g., cryptographic verification of encoded rules for non-fungible digital assets and configuring and controlling a digital asset cluster via an embedded VM composable asset control system executing on a secure cryptoprocessor embedded in an HSM-is a practical application of a solution to a concrete, real-world problem in numerous fields, such as those involving the exchange of collectibles, games and game items, art, and real estate. As such, it is clear that any abstract idea alleged to be recited in amended Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and Claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “First, Applicant submits that the Specification as filed sets forth improvements in technology. For instance, existing systems lack the ability to verify compliance of encoded rules related to non-fungible digital assets, e.g., NFTs. Applicant's Specification explains that: "The cryptoprocessor may be specialized to execute cryptographic algorithms within hardware to support the composable asset control system. Functions include such things as ... algorithms that verify compliance of encoded rules related to an NFT asset. Second, Applicant submits that amended Claim 1 reflects the improvements to existing techniques for digital asset control.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Applicant argues that there is an improvements in technology. However, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.”. For example, “The cryptoprocessor may be specialized to execute cryptographic algorithms within hardware to support the composable asset control system. Functions include such things as ... algorithms that verify compliance of encoded rules related to an NFT asset” is a business problem (i.e. managing multiple assets), rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, (i.e., the additional limitations) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits: “Applicant further submits that the claimed invention includes significantly more than any alleged judicial exception at least because amended Claim 1 adds "specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” MPEP 2106.05.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s
arguments persuasive. Applicant’s argument are directed towards the claimed invention includes significantly more than alleged judicial exception. However, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, as the claim the claim element does not point to improvement on technology as a generic computer is also capable for managing data. Furthermore, the claim language implement “hardware security module … embedded VM”, but, the hardware security module and embedded VM are used as a tool to complete the process. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits: “Moreover, Applicant submits that independent Claims 21 and 41 recite patentably similar elements as those argued above with regard to Claim 1 and, therefore, are likewise directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant further submits that dependent Claims 3-20 and 23-28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 39 inherit the features of their respective independent base claims and, accordingly, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence. In addition, Claims 2, 22, and 29 are being canceled by way of this Amendment and, as such, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 2, 22, and 29 are now moot. Applicant thus respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, and 41 be withdrawn.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s
arguments persuasive. The applicant argues claims 1-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, and 41 should be withdrawn. However, The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. See rejection above for analysis of the dependent claims. Additionally, based on the analysis, independent claim 21 and 41 (which representative of claim 1) are also rejected. See rejection above. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “Applicant respectfully disagrees, but notes that Claim 29 is being canceled by way of this Amendment and, as such, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 29 is now moot. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 29 be withdrawn.”
Examiner responds: In light of applicants amendment to claim 29, the claim rejection have been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Long is completely silent as to a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor embedded in an HSM-let alone the secure cryptoprocessor configured to execute a composable asset control system, the composable asset control system implemented as an embedded VM on the secure cryptoprocessor, and the secure cryptoprocessor further configured to execute a cryptographic function, the cryptographic function including verification of at least one encoded rule associated with a non-fungible digital asset. Long thus fails to teach or suggest the amended Claim 1 elements of "at least one of the multiple nodes including a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor embedded in a hardware security module (HSM), the secure cryptoprocessor configured to execute a composable asset control system, the composable asset control system implemented as an embedded virtual machine (V'M) on the secure cryptoprocessor, the secure cryptoprocessor further configured to execute a cryptographic function, the cryptographic function including verification of at least one encoded rule associated with a non-fungible digital asset. In light of the above remarks and amendments, Applicant submits that Claim 1 is novel and non-obvious in view of the cited art. Moreover, Applicant submits that independent Claims 21 and 41 contain patentably similar elements as those argued above with regard to Claim 1 and, as such, are likewise novel and non-obvious."
Examiner responds: The Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The applicant arguments are directed towards amended claim language are not supported by the Long reference. The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the applicant’s remark are directed to the newly added claim language. And the amended claim is still obvious based on the updated rejection. The newly cited Green references discloses embedded VM and implementing hardware security module. Therefore the combination of Long, Green does disclose the limitation of claims 1, 21, 41. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Applicant further submits that dependent Claims 3- 9, 11-15, 18-20, 23-28, 32, 34, and 39 include the patentably distinct features of their respective independent base claims and, accordingly, are novel and non-obvious at least by virtue of their dependence. In addition, Claims 2, 22, and 29 are being canceled by way of this Amendment and, therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 2, 22, and 29 are now moot. Applicant thus respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 1-9, 11-15, 18-29, 32, 34, 39, and 41 be withdrawn.”
Examiner responds: The Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The applicant arguments are directed towards dependent claims are allowable as they allegedly depend on allowable independent claims. However, the examiner disagree with the applicant as the combination of Long, Green discloses the limitation of claims 1, 21, 41. Furthermore, the combination of Long, and Green also disclose the claim limitation of claims 3-20, 23-28, 32, 34 39, 42-43. See updated rejection above. As claims 2, 22, 29 are cancelled they cannot be examined. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Claims 10, 17, 30, and 37 include the above argued patentably distinct features of their respective independent base claims. Cella, alone or in combination with Long, fails to cure the above argued deficiencies. Accordingly, Claims 10, 17, 30, and 37 are patentable in view of the cited combination of Cella and Long. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 10, 17, 30, and 37.”
Examiner responds: The Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The applicant arguments are directed towards dependent claims are allowable as they allegedly depend on allowable independent claims. However, the examiner disagree with the applicant as the combination of Long, Green discloses the limitation of claims 1, 21, 41. Furthermore, the combination of Long, Green and Cella also disclose the claim limitation of claims 10, 17, 30, and 37. See updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: Claims 16 and 35 include the above argued patentably distinct features of their respective independent base claims. Quigley, alone or in combination with Long, fails to cure the above argued deficiencies. Claims 16 and 35 are thus patentable in view of the cited combination of Quigley and Long. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 16 and 35.
Examiner responds: The Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The applicant arguments are directed towards dependent claims are allowable as they allegedly depend on allowable independent claims. However, the examiner disagree with the applicant as the combination of Long, Green discloses the limitation of claims 1, 21, 41. Furthermore, the combination of Long, Green and Quigley also disclose the claim limitation of claims 16, 35. See updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Newly added Claims 42 and 43 depend from independent Claim 1 and are thus directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are novel and non-obvious in view of the cited art at least by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1.”
Examiner Response: The Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The applicant arguments are directed towards dependent claims are allowable as they allegedly depend on allowable independent claims. However, the examiner disagree with the applicant as the combination of Long, Green discloses the limitation of claims 1, 21, 41. Furthermore, the combination of Long, Green disclose the claim limitation of claims 42, 43. See updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
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 MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 12/22/2025
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698