Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 2/11/2026. Claims 1, 9-12, and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Lee, Johnson and Pinski have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated from amending the independent claims 1, 12 and 20. The instant rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically argued in the Applicant's response.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented as below.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20250053942 A1), in view of Johnson (US 20220247584 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20250045759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A server computer system comprising: a communications module; a processor coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to: (Lee; Para(s). [0022]: the system for providing financial transaction services in conjunction with a metaverse environment may include an automated teller machine (ATM) device)
obtain, via the communications module, immutable evidence data (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server (i.e. immutable evidence data))
Lee does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
obtain, via the communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
mint the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and
store the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
mint the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token))
store the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. blockchain network))
Johnson is combinable with Lee because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee to incorporate storing metadata including creation time as in Johnson in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which identifying information may be stored in metadata.
Lee and Johnson do not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
obtain, via the communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
obtain, via the communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality; (Kim; [0062]-[0063], [0065]: the machine learning model may be further trained to identify one or more security actions, including, for instance, transaction security actions, self-service kiosk security actions, and the like; the request for transaction details such as identification of the user requesting the transaction, an account for the transaction, a type of transaction, a location of the self-service kiosk, a financial institution or enterprise organization associated with the user or account, image data associated with the transaction, and the like (i.e., immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources); the machine learning model trained based on data from the various enterprise organizations may be used to evaluate the transaction (i.e., automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality))
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and (Kim; [0087]: different security profiles may be implemented by a machine learning model based on time of day (i.e., date of creation ), day of week, nearby events, specific location (i.e., a location of the consent data), and the like)
Kim is combinable with Lee and Johnson because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee and Johnson to incorporate evidence and transaction data as in Kim in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ATM transactions may be audited for legitimacy.
Regarding claim 2, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored off-chain. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created (i.e. the metadata is stored off-chain) represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the metadata includes information identifying a date of modification of the non-fungible token. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein when minting the immutable evidence data as the non-fungible token, the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: create a new token having a unique token identifier; and associate the new token with the metadata. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. create a new token having a unique token identifier; and associate the new token with the metadata))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the consent data is aggregated chronologically based on a timestamp associated with each consent from the plurality of sources. (Lee; [0004]: a timestamp is recorded for each new block, and the timestamp serves as information proving the time when the transaction occurred (i.e. consent data is aggregated chronologically))
Regarding claim 9, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of automated teller machine data sources includes at least two of an automated teller machine, an automated teller machine switch, and an automated teller machine host server. (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server) (i.e., automated teller machine host server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server (i.e. automated teller machine))
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 12 substantially as follows:
A computer-implemented method performed by a processor of a server computer system, the method comprising: (Lee; Para(s). [0022]: the system for providing financial transaction services in conjunction with a metaverse environment may include an automated teller machine (ATM) device)
obtaining, via a communications module, immutable evidence data (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server (i.e. immutable evidence data))
Lee does not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
obtaining, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
minting the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and
storing the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
minting the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token))
storing the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. blockchain network))
Johnson is combinable with Lee because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee to incorporate storing metadata including creation time as in Johnson in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which identifying information may be stored in metadata.
Lee and Johnson do not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
obtaining, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
obtaining, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality; (Kim; [0062]-[0063], [0065]: the machine learning model may be further trained to identify one or more security actions, including, for instance, transaction security actions, self-service kiosk security actions, and the like; the request for transaction details such as identification of the user requesting the transaction, an account for the transaction, a type of transaction, a location of the self-service kiosk, a financial institution or enterprise organization associated with the user or account, image data associated with the transaction, and the like (i.e., immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources); the machine learning model trained based on data from the various enterprise organizations may be used to evaluate the transaction (i.e., automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality))
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and (Kim; [0087]: different security profiles may be implemented by a machine learning model based on time of day (i.e., date of creation ), day of week, nearby events, specific location (i.e., a location of the consent data), and the like)
Kim is combinable with Lee and Johnson because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee and Johnson to incorporate evidence and transaction data as in Kim in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ATM transactions may be audited for legitimacy.
Regarding claim 13, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the metadata is stored off-chain. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created (i.e. the metadata is stored off-chain) represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 12 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the metadata includes information identifying a date of modification of the non-fungible token. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 12 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein when minting the immutable evidence data as the non-fungible token, the method further comprises: creating a new token having a unique token identifier; and associating the new token with the metadata. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. create a new token having a unique token identifier; and associate the new token with the metadata))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 12 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the consent data is aggregated chronologically based on a timestamp associated with each consent from the plurality of sources. (Lee; [0004]: a timestamp is recorded for each new block, and the timestamp serves as information proving the time when the transaction occurred (i.e. consent data is aggregated chronologically))
Regarding claim 19, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of automated teller machine data sources includes at least two of an automated teller machine, an automated teller machine switch, and an automated teller machine host server. (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server) (i.e., automated teller machine host server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server (i.e. automated teller machine))
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 20 substantially as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of a computing system cause the computing system to: (Lee; Para(s). [0022]: the system for providing financial transaction services in conjunction with a metaverse environment may include an automated teller machine (ATM) device)
obtain, via a communications module, immutable evidence data (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server (i.e. immutable evidence data))
Lee does not teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
obtain, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
mint the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and
store the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
mint the immutable evidence data as a non-fungible token that includes metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token [and a reference to a location of the consent data]; and (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. metadata identifying at least a date of creation of the non-fungible token))
store the non-fungible token in a block of a blockchain network. (Johnson; Para(s). [0551] & [0607]: MDB metadata may include a timestamp that indicates a date and/or time when the MDB was created represented by or encoded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (i.e. blockchain network))
Johnson is combinable with Lee because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee to incorporate storing metadata including creation time as in Johnson in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which identifying information may be stored in metadata.
Lee and Johnson do not teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
obtain, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality;
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
obtain, via a communications module, immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources and automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality; (Kim; [0062]-[0063], [0065]: the machine learning model may be further trained to identify one or more security actions, including, for instance, transaction security actions, self-service kiosk security actions, and the like; the request for transaction details such as identification of the user requesting the transaction, an account for the transaction, a type of transaction, a location of the self-service kiosk, a financial institution or enterprise organization associated with the user or account, image data associated with the transaction, and the like (i.e., immutable evidence data that includes consent data from a plurality of sources); the machine learning model trained based on data from the various enterprise organizations may be used to evaluate the transaction (i.e., automated teller machine session data aggregated from a plurality of automated teller machine data sources based on at least one commonality))
metadata identifying at least a date of creation [of the non-fungible token] and a reference to a location of the consent data; and (Kim; [0087]: different security profiles may be implemented by a machine learning model based on time of day (i.e., date of creation ), day of week, nearby events, specific location (i.e., a location of the consent data), and the like)
Kim is combinable with Lee and Johnson because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing transaction data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee and Johnson to incorporate evidence and transaction data as in Kim in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which ATM transactions may be audited for legitimacy.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20250053942 A1), in view of Johnson (US 20220247584 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20250045759 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Tran (US 20210256070 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored as a Uniform Resource Identifier link inside a contract of the non-fungible token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tran discloses the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored as a Uniform Resource Identifier link inside a contract of the non-fungible token. (Tran; Para(s). [0791]: The address can be transmitted through any medium, including one-way mediums which prevent the spender from communicating with the receiver, and it can be further encoded into another format, such as a QR code containing a bitcoin: URI (i.e. a Uniform Resource Identifier))
Tran is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate an RSI within a token as in Tran in order to expand the functionality of the system by providing a means by which various data types may be stored.
Regarding claim 14, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12.
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the metadata is stored as a Uniform Resource Identifier link inside a contract of the non-fungible token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tran discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the metadata is stored as a Uniform Resource Identifier link inside a contract of the non-fungible token. (Tran; Para(s). [0791]: The address can be transmitted through any medium, including one-way mediums which prevent the spender from communicating with the receiver, and it can be further encoded into another format, such as a QR code containing a bitcoin: URI (i.e. a Uniform Resource Identifier))
Tran is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate an RSI within a token as in Tran in order to expand the functionality of the system by providing a means by which various data types may be stored.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20250053942 A1), in view of Johnson (US 20220247584 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20250045759 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Kurian (US 20230186309 A1), further in view of Narendra (US 20230388795 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to:
receive a request to verify the immutable evidence data; retrieve the non-fungible token from the blockchain network; and
analyze the metadata of the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token to verify the immutable evidence data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurian discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to:
receive a request to verify the immutable evidence data; retrieve the non-fungible token from the blockchain network; and (Kurian; Para(s). [0025]: user credential-related information is received, and the information is compared to the corresponding NFT as a means of authenticating)
Kurian is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate retrieval of an NFT for authentication as in Kurian in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which an NFT may be utilized for authentication.
Lee, Johnson, Kim and Kurian do not teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
analyze the metadata of the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token to verify the immutable evidence data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Narendra discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
analyze the metadata of the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token to verify the immutable evidence data. (Narendra; Para(s). [0148]: a TID Token may comprise of a header that defines the type of token and security algorithm used; a payload that contains user information and metadata such as token duration and time of creation; and a signature to verify the sender's identity and the message's authenticity)
Narendra is combinable with Lee, Johnson, Kim and Kurian because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson, Kim and Kurian to incorporate including creation time of a token within a token as in Narendra in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which identifying information of a token may be incorporated into the token.
Regarding claim 17, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12.
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a request for the immutable evidence data; retrieving the non-fungible token from the blockchain network; and
analyzing the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurian discloses the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a request for the immutable evidence data; retrieving the non-fungible token from the blockchain network; and (Kurian; Para(s). [0025]: user credential-related information is received, and the information is compared to the corresponding NFT as a means of authenticating)
Kurian is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate retrieval of an NFT for authentication as in Kurian in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which an NFT may be utilized for authentication.
Lee, Johnson and Kurian do not teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
analyzing the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Narendra discloses the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
analyzing the non-fungible token to determine at least one of the date of creation of the non-fungible token or a date of modification of the non-fungible token. (Narendra; Para(s). [0148]: a TID Token may comprise of a header that defines the type of token and security algorithm used; a payload that contains user information and metadata such as token duration and time of creation; and a signature to verify the sender's identity and the message's authenticity)
Narendra is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kurian because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kurian to incorporate including creation time of a token within a token as in Narendra in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which identifying information of a token may be incorporated into the token.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20250053942 A1), in view of Johnson (US 20220247584 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20250045759 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Turner (US 20220271915 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the non-fungible token includes a static non-fungible token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turner discloses the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 1, wherein the non-fungible token includes a static non-fungible token. (Turner; Para(s). [0099]: The non-fungible tokens produced are also a static list of values)
Turner is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate static values within an NFT as in Turner in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which contents of an NFT may not be changed.
Claims 10 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20250053942 A1), in view of Johnson (US 20220247584 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20250045759 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Phillips (US 20220271915 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 9.
Lee, Johnson and Kim teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of automated teller machine data sources includes a plurality of automated teller machine data sources and (Lee; Para(s). [0047]: the ATM device may establish a communication connection with the financial transaction service provision server (e.g., the financial transaction service provision server), may transmit information for a financial transaction to the financial transaction service provision server )
Lee, Johnson and Kim do not teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: normalize and aggregate the automated teller machine session data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Phillips discloses the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: normalize and aggregate the automated teller machine session data. (Phillips; Para(s). [0060]: may need to normalize data from different ATM devices (e.g., normalize to a uniform scale), may need to aggregate data from ATM devices associated with different financial institutions (i.e. normalize and aggregate the automated teller machine session data))
Phillips is combinable with Lee, Johnson and Kim because all are from the same field of endeavor of managing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Lee, Johnson and Kim to incorporate aggregation and normalization of information as in Phillips in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing information in an optimal or desired format.
Regarding claim 11, Lee, Johnson, Kim and Phillips teach the limitations of claim 10.
Lee, Johnson, Kim and Phillips teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The server computer system of claim 10, wherein when aggregating the automated teller machine session data, the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: analyze the automated teller machine session data to identify the at least one commonality within the automated teller machine session data received from each of the automated teller machine data sources; and (Phillips; Para(s). [0062]: identifying a subset of ATM devices based on the capability, the fee, and/or a preference of an account associated with a request (i.e. at least one commonality within the automated teller machine session data received from each of the automated teller machine data sources))
aggregate the automated teller machine session data based at least on the at least one commonality. (Phillips; Para(s). [0060]: may need to normalize data from different ATM devices (e.g., normalize to a uniform scale), may need to aggregate data from ATM devices associated with different financial institutions (i.e. aggregate the automated teller machine session data based at least on the identified commonality))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Singh (US 20230316876 A1) which teaches a computing platform which may detect ATM performance information from an ATM. The computing platform may validate the ATM performance information against baseline ATM performance information.
Gupta (US 20210243027 A1) which teaches enabling an entity to prove its identity and provide authentic documents/data/information therein at any time required based upon data retrieved from an independent cryptographically verifiable source (ICVS) through a secured channel.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438