DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgments
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on April 1, 2026. Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are currently pending and are fully examined. Claims 10-16 are cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 101 rejections, Applicant argues, on page 9 of remarks, that “claim 1, as amended, recites a specific set of rules and processes that govern how such assets are verified, securely stored, and rendered as controlled instances, rather than merely recording or organizing information.” The examiner respectfully notes that the rules and processes to verify an asset is an abstract idea on itself, as those rules and processes for asset verification has been done using pen and paper for a long time before even computers were invented.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, sales activities, contracts, or other forms of economic behavior. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim processing, registering and rendering digital assets owned by people. Even upon reconsideration in view of applicant’s arguments, the examiner is not persuaded that the claim does not recite an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on page 10, that claim 1, as amended describes a technical process governing how procedurally generated digital assets are verified, secured, and rendered. The examiner respectfully notes that verification, securing and rendering of digital assets is an abstract idea, because the claim involves a series of steps for storing an asset in a secure environment and providing an instance of the asset based on request.
Applicant further argues, on pages 10-11, that claim 1 does not manage personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people, and that claim 1 cannot be characterized as merely tracking or organizing information in the abstract, and that claim 1 does not recite a mental process. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not need to be directed to all the possible examples of abstract idea and it is sufficient to recite one abstract idea and not all the groupings of abstract idea.
Applicant further argue, on page 11, that claim 1 is analogous to the claims in Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. V. Microsoft Corp. and Synopsys, Inc. V. Mentor Graphics Corp. However, Applicant does not further point out in what way present claim 1 and named court cases are analogous. In fact, the examiner notes that in Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. V. Microsoft Corp., the claims at issue are directed to image processing which are not analogous with the present claims.
Applicant further argues, on page 11, that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application by addressing the issue of an asset being copied or regenerated once exposed outside a controlled computing environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements of the claim do not amount to more than tools to perform the abstract idea, because an asset being protected in a secure environment is an abstract idea that for example, can be performed by locking valuable items in a safe box. The fact that the controlled environment is a computing environment is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on page 12, that claim 1, as amended, requires "writing, to the verifiable registry, procedural-generation data identifying one or more procedural-generation parameters used to generate the digital asset," while separately "storing the digital asset within a secure environment," and "rendering, from within the secure environment, the instance of the digital asset including at least one difference with respect to the digital asset" and "providing the instance for use outside the secure environment," and that this claim recitations implements a technical solution and provides an architecture that enables verification of how the asset was generated without enabling access to or regeneration of the digital asset outside the secure environment. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not provide a specific “architecture” as argued by Applicant. In addition, the claim amendments merely describe recording data, storing a digital asset, and rendering an instance of digital asset, which are abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues, on page 12, that claim 1, as amended, recites significantly more than the mere storage or display of information, because the claimed operations improve how computer systems securely manage and distribute procedurally generated digital assets and cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the recited operations may not be done in human mind but are possible to be done using pen and paper, by keeping the pen and paper in a safe box, for example.
Applicant further, on pages 13-14, provides references to the Specification describing issues with computing systems that handle digital content, and argues that claim 1 improves a technical filed related to secure computer-based management and distribution of procedurally generated digital assets. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “computer-based management” is automated “data management” using computing devices. It is using technology for managing data, but it is not a technical filed based on the definition of a technology in the subject matter eligibility (MPEP 2106.05(a)), which for example, involves improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant further, on pages 14-16, refers to Enfish stating that Enfish claims were noy abstract idea because they recited a "specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory,” and alleges that present claims are analogous. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not provide a specific data structure or an improvement to database technology, as was the case in Enfish. The examiner further notes that Enfish introduces a self-referential model that allows more flexibility in configuring a database. However, the present claimed features concern with the “content” (i.e. digital assets) rather than the “structure” Therefore, the present claims and Enfish are fundamentally different and not suited to comparison.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that cited art fails to teach the amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant states that Soon-Shiong does not disclose "storing the digital asset to a secure environment" that prevents external access to the asset itself, and "rendering, from within the secure environment, the instance of the digital asset including at least one difference with respect to the digital asset" while maintaining confinement of the underlying asset and its procedural-generation parameters.
The examiner respectfully notes that firstly, the prior art of Newberg is relied on for teaching the “storing” step and not the Soon-Shiong. Secondly, in their argument, Applicant adds interpretations which are not part of the claim language. For example, “that prevents external access to the asset itself,” and “while maintaining confinement of the underlying asset and its procedural-generation parameters.” The examiner respectfully notes that the prior art does not need to teach Applicant’s interpretation of the claim. And thirdly, throughout Applicant’s disclosure “secure environment” has been used as an opposite of “public environment” which can be interpreted as a “private environment.” Similarly, Newberg in [0032] teaches storing the digital asset on a wallet which encrypts data with encryption keys. Therefore, the wallet of Newberg is interpreted as a secure/private environment.
In addition, the examiner notes that with respect to the “rendering” step, Soon-Shiong at least in [0044]-[0046] teaches that a digital token is created (i.e., rendered) and represents an instance of the digital asset such that similarity with the digital asset is reduced (i.e., with at least one difference)
Applicant further argues that Newberg does not teach the “rendering” step. The examiner respectfully notes that the “rendering” is taught by Soon-Shiong as explained above.
Applicant further argues that the combination of limitations recited in amended claim 1 reflects a fundamentally different technical architecture, because the claimed method not only writes ownership data and procedural-generation data to a verifiable registry, but also stores the digital asset itself within a secure environment and performs rendering from within that secure environment to produce an instance that differs from the stored asset. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that teaching of steps “storing” and “rendering” by the prior art was explained above. With respect to the “writing” step, Newberg at least in [0033]-[0035], [0037] teaches digital asset created based on metadata (i.e., procedural generation parameters) and the metadata (i.e., procedural generation parameters) is stored on a blockchain (i.e., verifiable registry).
With respect to claim 17, Applicant argues that Soon-Shiong does not disclose storing a 3D model to a secure environment that prevents external access to the model itself. Nor does Soon-Shiong disclose rendering, from within such a secure environment, an image corresponding to a view of the 3D model while keeping the underlying model isolated.
The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant adds interpretations which are not part of the claim language. For example, “that prevents external access to the model itself,” and “while keeping the underlying model isolated.” The examiner respectfully notes that the prior art does not need to teach Applicant’s interpretation of the claim. In addition, the examiner notes that Soon-Shiong in [0048] teaches that the digital asset can be “image, 3D model, game scene, game level, audio, video, text, program code, digital objects” Therefore, the process performed by Soon-Shiong on a digital asset is in fact expanded on a 3D model.
Claim Objection
With respect to claim 5, the term “the information identifying one or more procedural generation parameters ” should be replaced with “the procedural generation data identifying one or more procedural generation parameters,” to follow with the amendment to claim 1. This is because the term “information identifying one or more procedural generation parameters” has been replaced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 and 21-27 are directed to a process (method) and claims 17-20 are directed to a products (system). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are directed to the abstract idea of storing an asset in a secure environment and providing an instance of the asset based on request. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claim 1, recite:
obtaining data representative of a digital asset generated by executing a procedural generation process;
determining ownership data associated with the digital asset;
indicating the ownership data of the digital asset in a verifiable registry;
writing, to the verifiable registry, procedural generation data identifying one or more procedural generation parameters used to generate the digital asset;
storing the digital asset to a secure environment;
receiving a request for an instance of the digital asset;
rendering, from within the secure environment, the instance of the digital asset including at least one difference with respect to the digital asset; and
providing the instance, in response to the request, for use outside the secure environment.
Independent claim 17 recites:
a processor; and
memory including instructions that, when performed by the processor, cause the system to:
obtain ownership information corresponding to a three-dimensional (3D) model;
indicate, based at least on the ownership information, ownership of the 3D model in a verifiable registry;
store the 3D model to a secure environment;
receive a request for an image corresponding to a view of the 3D model;
render, from within the secure environment, the image corresponding to the 3D model; and
provide the image, in response to the request, for use outside the secure environment.
Independent claim 21 recites similar limitations to claim 1.
Specifically claims 1, 17 and 21 recite the abstract idea of storing an asset in a secure environment and providing an instance of the asset based on request. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for storing an asset in a secure environment and providing an instance of the asset based on request. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of digital asset, a processor, and memory including instructions that are performed by the processor, and a 3D model merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of digital asset, a processor and a memory, and a 3D model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a processor and a memory amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2, recites:
wherein the verifiable registry is at least one of a trusted database or a blockchain.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of trusted database or a blockchain, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 3, recites:
wherein the digital asset is a three-dimensional (3D) model, and wherein the instance is a two-dimensional (2D) image illustrating a view of the 3D model.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a three-dimensional (3D) model, and a two-dimensional (2D) image, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 4, recites:
wherein the digital asset is generated based in part on a prompt provided as input, and wherein the prompt and ownership information for the prompt are stored using the verifiable registry, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 4 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, recites:
wherein at least one of the prompt or the information identifying one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process are stored using the verifiable registry in a protected form that allows for validation without public exposure, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 5 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, recites:
providing, to an entity, one or more rights to use the prompt with additional input to generate a variation of the digital asset, wherein the providing does not include providing an unprotected version of the prompt to the entity, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 6 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, recites:
wherein a seed is provided with the prompt to ensure consistent generation of the digital asset using the one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process, and wherein a protected version of the seed is stored using the verifiable registry, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 7 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8, recites:
wherein the digital asset is not exposed outside the secure environment during a period of ownership and was not previously exposed in an unsecure location, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 8 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites:
wherein the digital asset has associated behavior information, and further comprising:
rendering, from within the secure environment, a sequence of instances of the digital asset that represents performance of the associated behavior information, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 9 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claims 18 and 26, recite:
wherein the 3D model is generated executing at least one procedural generation process, and wherein information indicating one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process is stored using a verifiable ledger, which further describe the abstract idea. Claims 18 and 26 do not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 19, recites:
wherein the information indicating one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process are stored using the verifiable ledger in protected form, the protected form, the protected form allowing validation without public exposure, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 19 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 20, recites:
wherein the system comprises at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content;
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM), a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a system for rendering graphical output, a system implemented using an edge device, a system for presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for presenting mixed reality (MR) content; and a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation only one of these systems is required in the scope of the claim so if even one of these reasonably merely elaborates on the abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the claim remains ineligible. Nonetheless, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 22, recites:
wherein no rendered content has quality values equivalent to the digital asset for a set of quality metrics including at least one quality metric, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 22 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 23, recites:
wherein the at least one quality metric includes at least one of a resolution, a color depth, a size, a bit depth, a bit rate, a dimension, or an amount of compression, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 23 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 24, recites:
wherein the digital asset is an image, an audio file, a three-dimensional (3D) model, an animation, or a behavior.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of an image, an audio file, a three-dimensional (3D) model, an animation, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 25, recites:
wherein the digital asset has a set of modifiable properties, and wherein the request for the content is enabled to indicate one or more values for one or more of the modifiable properties to be used to generate the content, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 25 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 27, recites:
wherein the digital asset is not exposed outside the secure environment during a period of ownership and was not previously exposed in an unsecure location, which further describe the abstract idea. Claim 27 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soon-Shiong et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0264996,) in view of Newberg et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0360280.)
With respect to claims 1, 17, and 21, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
obtaining data representative of a digital asset generated by executing a procedural generation process; (TMP platform receives digital asset data from a user device: [0040], the digital asset is generated using procedural generation: [0048])
determining ownership data associated with the digital asset; (an ownership identifier of the digital asset is provided: [0041], [0061])
indicating the ownership data of the digital asset in a verifiable registry; (ownership is recorded in a blockchain (i.e., verifiable registry): [0036], [0091])
receiving a request for an instance of the digital asset; (request for a digital token (i.e., instance) associated with digital asset: [0044])
rendering, from within the secure environment, the instance of the digital asset including at least one difference with respect to the digital asset; (digital token is created (i.e., rendered) and represents an instance of the digital asset such that similarity with the digital asset is reduced (i.e., at least one difference) : [0044]-[0046])
providing the instance, in response to the request, for use outside the secure environment. (token data is sent to the user device: [0046]-[0047])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “for use outside…” indicates intended use of the instance and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 17, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
a processor; and memory including instructions performed by the processor, ([0051])
a 3D model as a digital asset, ([0048])
an image as an instance of the digital asset, ([0041])
Soon-Shiong et al. do not explicitly teach; however, Newberg et al. teach:
writing, to the verifiable registry, procedural generation data identifying one or more procedural generation parameters used to generate the digital asset; (digital asset created based on metadata (i.e., procedural generation parameters) [0018]-[0019], [0027]-[0028] and the metadata (i.e., procedural generation parameters) is stored on a blockchain (i.e., written to verifiable registry): [0033]-[0037])
storing the digital asset to a secure environment; (digital asset is stored on a wallet with encryption keys (i.e., secure environment): [0032])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 2, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the verifiable registry is at least one of a trusted database or a blockchain. ([0061])
With respect to claim 3, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset is a three-dimensional (3D) model, ([0048], [0065])
and wherein the instance is a two-dimensional (2D) image illustrating a view of the 3D model. (digital token or NFT is an image: [0041]-[0042])
With respect to claim 4, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Newberg et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset is generated based in part on a prompt provided as input, (digital asset created based on metadata that includes ownership: [0033]-[0035])
and wherein the prompt and ownership information for the prompt are stored using the verifiable registry. (metadata stored on blockchain: [0037])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 5, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 4.
Moreover, Newberg et al. teach:
wherein at least one of the prompt or the information identifying one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process are stored using the verifiable registry in a protected form that allows for validation without public exposure, (metadata stored on blockchain: [0033]-[0035], [0037])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “that allows…” indicates an intended use of the protected form and therefore, does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 6, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 4.
Moreover, Newberg et al. teach:
providing, to an entity, one or more rights to use the prompt with additional input to generate a variation of the digital asset, (user can modify the digital asset: [0042]-[0045])
wherein the providing does not include providing an unprotected version of the prompt to the entity. (user identity is verified before providing access: [0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 7, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 4.
Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. do not explicitly teach:
wherein a seed is provided with the prompt to ensure consistent generation of the digital asset using the one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process, and wherein a protected version of the seed is stored using the verifiable registry.
However, claim recitation indicates not-positively recited limitations in which the functions “providing” and “storing” are not positively recited and therefore the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 8 and 27, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 21.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset is not exposed outside the secure environment during a period of ownership and was not previously exposed in an unsecure location. (digital asset is encrypted: [0049], digital tokens are not revealed: [0100], [0108])
With respect to claim 9, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset has associated behavior information, ([0036], [0159])
rendering, from within the secure environment, a sequence of instances of the digital asset that represents performance of the associated behavior information. (create a set of tokens representing behavior data: [0206])
With respect to claims 18 and 26, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claims 17 and 21.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the 3D model is generated executing at least one procedural generation process, ([0048])
In addition, Newberg et al. teach:
wherein information indicating one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process is stored using a verifiable ledger. (digital asset created based on metadata and the metadata is stored on a blockchain: [0033]-[0035], [0037])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 19, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 18.
Moreover, Newberg et al. teach:
the information indicating one or more procedural generation parameters of the procedural generation process are stored using the verifiable ledger in protected form, the protected form… (metadata stored on blockchain: [0033]-[0035], [0037])
the protected form allowing validation without public exposure,
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “the protected form allowing…” indicates an intended use of the protected form and therefore, does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the procedural generation of digital assets, as taught by Newberg et al., into the token management system of Soon-Shiong et al., in order to provide efficient storage of digital assets. (Newberg et al.: Abstract, [0018])
With respect to claim 20, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 17.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the system comprises at least one of:
a system for performing simulation operations; ([0036])
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output; ([0050])
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content;
a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; ([0165])
a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); [0166])
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; ([0050])
a system for performing hardware testing using simulation;
a system for synthetic data generation;
a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM), a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; [0036], [0224], [0230]-[0231])
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. ([0050]-[0051])
The examiner notes that the claim recitations indicate optional features separated with an “or” and for a prior art to teach the claimed system it is sufficient to teach one of the multiple options.
With respect to claim 22, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 21.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein no rendered content has quality values equivalent to the digital asset for a set of quality metrics including at least one quality metric. (similarity score between digital assets: [0046]-[0048])
With respect to claim 23, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 22.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the at least one quality metric includes at least one of a resolution, a color depth, a size, a bit depth, a bit rate, a dimension, or an amount of compression. (similarity score include color: [0105])
With respect to claim 24, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 21.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset is an image, an audio file, a three-dimensional (3D) model, an animation, or a behavior. ([0041], [0047]-[0048], [0096])
With respect to claim 25, Soon-Shiong et al. and Newberg et al. teach the limitations of claim 21.
Moreover, Soon-Shiong et al. teach:
wherein the digital asset has a set of modifiable properties, (asset features can be modified: [0048]
and wherein the request for the content is enabled to indicate one or more values for one or more of the modifiable properties to be used to generate the content, (token data can indicate parameters: [0047], [0050])
The examiner notes that claim recitation: “the request for the content is enabled to indicate…to be used to generate…” indicate multiple intended use and intended result where neither of the functions “indicating…” “using” and “generating” are positively recited and therefore, the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kruger (US 12,154,666,) teaches secure wallets for storing digital assets. Gardner (US 2020/0272758,) teaches secure cloud based digital vault and secure servers for storing assets.
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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights