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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1, 7 and 13, filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
.
Examiner’s Comment
As a response to the remarks/comments filed on 12/17/2025, Examiner is introducing a new primary prior art Moshe et al., (US 20160162961 A1), to replace Tang et al., to address the Applicant’s persuasive remarks that Tang does not explicitly teach “embedding a transaction ID as a watermark into the artwork…” resulting in the this non final office action.
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action rejection on the merits. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18 are pending and are hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18 continues to be directed towards an Artwork acquisition transaction. This is an abstract idea. The claims still establish receiving an acquisition request to obtain an artwork to a contract account with owner identifier embedded. The computer technology merely automates and implements the abstract idea. The additional elements “a computer,” “an external device,” and “a blockchain network” do not improve the functioning of a computer nor does it improve a technology or technical field. Also, the additional elements of computer technology merely automate the abstract idea. In this instance, these are all elements of a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The devices, merely automates and implements the abstract idea to perform the functions. The devices do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the claim continues to be ineligible.
Furthermore, on page 6 of the response filed on 12/17/2025, Applicant asserts that “claims 1, 7 and 13, has been amended to more particularly recite the subject matter that applicant considers as their invention… the artwork in the encrypted state is stored in the distributed file system 51, and this can guarantee that the artwork has not been altered after the initial exhibition. Further, because the QR code® indicating the ID of the purchase transaction is embedded in the sold artwork, once the artwork is sold and then placed in a black market, the QR code® can be read from the distributed artwork to identify the purchaser who has released the artwork into the black market. Therefore, according to the artwork transaction system 1 of the present embodiment, the smart contract can be used to securely trade artwork.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion as the newly amended limitations does not help to overcome the 101 rejection, as having a unique identifier of the asset owner on the artwork to prove ownership and obfuscating the artwork for a transaction, is a form of commercial activity, and this transaction falls within “certain methods of organizing human activities”, therefore it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
USC § 103
The Amendment and remarks/response to the after Non-Final rejection filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s argument on page 8 of the response, that Tang does not explicitly teach “embedding a transaction ID as a watermark into the artwork…” have been found persuasive by the Examiner, thereby introducing a new prior art Moshe et al., (US 20160162961 A1), to teach this limitation “embedding a transaction ID as a watermark into the artwork…”, and more as disclosed below.
As regards the argument in respect to Koenig, Drouin, Dahaeck, on page 8 of the response, these arguments are not persuasive, as these prior art combinedly teaches the claims, and not individually teaching the elements as enumerated in the response.
Examiner will also like to disclose that, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The claims has been amended and further requires search consideration. Upon further search and consideration, Examiner is introducing a new prior art, Zhao et al., (US 20140074855 A1) to teach the newly added limitation “wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork” {see at least ¶¶ 0019-0020 “…the information extraction component comprises a watermark detector configured to extract an embedded watermark from the content to obtain at least a first portion of the embedded watermark payload corresponding to the content identifier, and the transmitter is configured to transmit at least the first portion of the embedded watermark payload to the one or more tag servers…”, and ¶ 0050}. Since Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao teaches the limitation “wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction, and wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork.” Emphasis added by the Examiner. Therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-2 and 5-6 are directed to a process (i.e., method), claims 7-8 and 11-12 are directed to a machine (i.e., computer), and claims 13-14 and 17-18 are directed to an article (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable medium). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claims 7 and 13, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
[A] A method of trading artwork, to be executed by a computer, the method comprising:
[B] receiving, by the computer, an acquisition request, from an external device, to acquire uploaded artwork; and
[C] in response to the acquisition request, issuing a transaction to a contract account on a blockchain network, the transaction including first information regarding the acquisition request and second information regarding the uploaded artwork;
[D] embedding, by the computer, a watermark indicating an ID of the transaction into the uploaded artwork to make the uploaded artwork traceable;
[E] encrypting, by the computer, the uploaded artwork embedded with the watermark using a data encryption key;
[F] storing, by the computer, the encrypted artwork in a distributed file system;
[G] storing, by the computer, the data encryption key in a secure key store in association with the ID of the transaction; and
[H] returning, by the computer, the ID of the transaction to the external device;
[I] wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction, and wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork.
Limitations A through I, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers
steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing legal/commercial behavior (e.g., receiving, issuing, embedding, encrypting, storing returning and decode). For example, the claims establish receiving an acquisition request to obtain an artwork with an identifier, to a contract account, add an identification mark to the artwork, then obfuscate the artwork, and store the obfuscated artwork in a trading ledger for use in a purchase transaction. Therefore, limitations A through I, recite an abstract idea, which is within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Additionally, this (“encrypted… artwork”, “the data encryption key”, “decodes the encrypted… artwork”), are all an abstract idea of a mathematical concept of certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Obfuscating the transaction data for transmission, using a key to later unscramble the data to retrieve the original data is an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity of legal/commercial behavior and a mathematical concept, is still an abstract idea. See Fair Warning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 1, and by analogy similar to claims 7 and 13, recite at least two abstract ideas and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 7 and 13 recites the additional elements in bold below:
[A] A method of trading artwork, to be executed by a computer, the method comprising:
[B] receiving, by the computer, an acquisition request, from an external device, to acquire uploaded artwork; and
[C] in response to the acquisition request, issuing a transaction to a contract account on a blockchain network, the transaction including first information regarding the acquisition request and second information regarding the uploaded artwork;
[D] embedding, by the computer, a watermark indicating an ID of the transaction into the uploaded artwork to make the uploaded artwork traceable;
[E] encrypting, by the computer, the uploaded artwork embedded with the watermark using a data encryption key;
[F] storing, by the computer, the encrypted artwork in a distributed file system;
[G] storing, by the computer, the data encryption key in a secure key store in association with the ID of the transaction; and
[H] returning, by the computer, the ID of the transaction to the external device;
[I] wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction, and wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork.
[J] additionally, claim 7 recites “A computer comprising: receiving circuitry, which, in operation, receives an acquisition request, from an external device, to acquire uploaded artwork;”
[K] and claim 13 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including a computer-executable program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform:”
The additional elements (“a computer”, “an external device”, “a blockchain network”, “a receiving circuitry”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a computer-executable program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform”), are no more than a generic computer performing operations to automate the purchase of an artwork transaction. Also, the additional elements of (“uploaded artwork”), they identify the data to which the abstract idea applies as being “digital” or “electronic,” which is a general link to a technological environment. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/a blockchain network, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment (e.g., “a computer”, “an external device”, “a blockchain network”, “a receiving circuitry”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a computer-executable program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform”), defined by high level recitations of a computer/a decentralized distributed ledger and the Internet. Additionally, the additional element of (“uploaded artwork”) which is mere data used for automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process a request to purchase an artwork. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-6 which are representative of claims 8 and 11-12 and 14 and 17-18 respectfully, further recites wherein watermark includes a QR code; generating a pair of a public key and a secret key; and applying the public key to encrypt the data encryption key; applying the public key to encrypt the data encryption key; comprising: transmitting the secret key to the external device. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions that can be reasonably performed by a human (use of data to identify artwork), as this a form of legal/commercial activities of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, this generation of key pair algorithms, and key encryption and decryption are all an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. And obfuscating the transaction data for transmission also is an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, at 52 (Jan. 7, 2019). The recitation of a “QR code” which is a mere data used for automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process a request to purchase an artwork. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and a mathematical concept, is still an abstract idea. See Fair Warning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There are no additional elements in claims for consideration under Steps 2A.2 or Step 2B beyond those discussed with respect to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, therefore these dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12 and 14, 17-18, respectively, are patent ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an
ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement
to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the
computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshe et al., (US 20160162961 A1) in view of Koenig et al., (US 20200311646 A1) in view of Drouin et al (US 20140222607 A1) in view of Zhao et al., (US 20140074855 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 13, Moshe teaches a method, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the method comprising:
receiving, by the computer, an acquisition request from an external device to acquire uploaded artwork {see at least ¶ 0047 “…FIG. 1 illustrates a method of verifying, controlling and limiting distribution of digital artwork files. In the method a digital artwork is received 10 at a registrar, which is typically a server or group of dedicated servers operated by a trusted third party entity. As will be discussed below the rights of the uploader to the digital artwork may be checked at this point, but assuming that the uploader does have the rights then an allowed number of copies is defined—box 12. The allowed number may be just one, for maximum rarity value or any larger number as desired. The number of operational digital copies in circulation may not exceed the selected number. Furthermore, as users may be purchasing copies based on an understanding of the rarity, the selected number may not be changed once the first sale has been made”, ¶ 0048 “Individual copies of the artwork may then be created 14 up to the allowed number. Typically, at this stage the individual copies are created in the sense of a number of identities. There is no need to create separate files until downloading is requested by an end user”, ¶ 0049 “Later on, the registration server may assign 16 an individual copy to a user by associating the user with the particular identity. This may happen for example when the individual user purchases or hires the copy”, ¶ 0050 “The user is supplied 18 with an identified usable copy, typically a file comprising an electronically watermarked version of the identified individual copy”}.
embedding, by the computer, a watermark indicating an ID of the transaction into the uploaded artwork to make the uploaded artwork traceable {see at least ¶¶ 0047- 0050, 0057 “ The method may involve embedding within the copy a hidden transaction stamp, for example as an electronic watermark. The watermark may be inserted using steganographic techniques to make it hard to find and hard to remove. The transaction stamp may specify the copy number, the registrar or other identification details and the most recent transaction events, such as which user has most recently downloaded the artwork. The stamp thus defines the end user that the file is supposed to work with”}.
encrypting, by the computer, the uploaded artwork embedded with the watermark using a data encryption key {see at least ¶ 0055 “…each individual copy is electronically encrypted and requires mutual identification between the user and the registration server to open the copy. Electronic encryption with mutual identification may for example be provided via a symmetric key cryptosystem or a public key cryptosystem”,
and ¶¶ 0056-0057}.
storing, by the computer, the encrypted artwork in a […] file system; storing, by the computer, the data encryption key in a secure key store in association with the ID of the transaction {see at least ¶ 0067 In more detail, the digital art file is uploaded 40. The upload is checked 42 against the various signature mechanisms to determine whether it has any of the signatures or watermarks being used in the system. If the artwork has a signature 44 then the signature data is displayed 46 to the uploading user and the process ends 48. If the artwork does not have signature or watermark data then the artwork is submitted for a visual search 50 to compare with local and other registrar databases to see if the same or a visually similar artwork is already on the database…“, ¶ 0068 “…The artwork may be associated with different kinds of metadata which is collected in stage 70. The ownership log for the particular copy is also obtained in box 72. A watermark is inserted into the media, using cryptographic or steganographic techniques or both in box 74. The distribution of the copy is registered in the database—box 76 and a file is created 78, known as an ART file, which includes all the signatures, the ownership log and the media itself. The ART file may include the metadata as needed or that may be retained on the registration server as preferred. In box 80 the generated ART file is sent to the end user”}.
Moshe does not explicitly disclose in response to the acquisition request, issuing a transaction to a contract account on a blockchain network, the transaction including first information regarding the acquisition request and second information regarding the uploaded artwork;
returning, by the computer, the ID of the transaction to the external device;
wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction, and
wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork.
However, Koenig discloses in response to the acquisition request, issuing a transaction to a contract account on a blockchain network, the transaction including first information regarding the acquisition request and second information regarding the uploaded artwork {¶¶ 0053-0054 ”… FIG. 3 may further include exchanging assets between parties… a request to transfer at least one asset to a second user may be received from a first user and, in response, the processor may create a smart contract on the blockchain. The smart contract may be associated with the first user and the second user. Then, the processor may further create an escrow account associated with the smart contract. The escrow account may be stored on the blockchain…”, ¶ 0078 “… At step 812, the client 804 may register with the system 200. At step 814, the attorney 802 sends a request document list with permissions set in the smart contract 606 to the client 804. The client 804 can upload the document to the blockchain 116 at step 816. At step 818, the client 804 verifies permissions of the smart contract 606 and receives a hash value from the blockchain 116 at step 820. At step 822, the transaction is logged on the blockchain 116. The attorney 802 can download the document from the blockchain 116 at step 824. At step 826, the attorney 802 shares the hash value with the client 804…”, ¶ 0079 “…The system 200 can verify whether a received/uploaded file is identical to a local copy of the file stored by the system 200 in the database 118. At step 904, the recipient 902 of a digital asset browses the file, e.g., a document, and provides a private key in order to verify the document by the system 200. At step 906, the system 200 can check permissions for the recipient 902 via the smart contract 616 and validate the private key…”, and ¶ 0085}.
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe to include the elements of using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction of Koenig. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a platform to sell protected, secured and valid digital asset. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request. Koenig is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, as well as using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe, as well as Koenig 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 Moshe/Koenig.
The combination of Moshe in view of Koenig does not explicitly disclose
returning, by the computer, the ID of the transaction to the external device;
wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data
encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction, and
wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork.
However, Drouin discloses returning, by the computer, the ID of the transaction to the external device {see at least ¶ 0004 “…the digital edition management server application configures the processor to generate a limited number of digital edition entries within the digital edition database referencing the digital artworks stored in the digital distribution server, where each digital edition entry in the digital edition database includes an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital edition, generate a user interface that includes information regarding at least one digital edition for sale, where the user interface allows the digital edition management server to receive a request to purchase the at least one digital edition for sale, associate a specific digital edition entry in the digital edition database with a specific user account upon the sale of each to the sold digital edition, identify at least one digital artwork that a specific user account is authorized to access from the data describing the digital artworks specific user accounts are authorized to access in the digital edition database, and generate a user interface that provides information for requesting access to at least one file containing the digital artwork.
wherein the computer, when receiving the ID of the transaction from the external device, decodes the encrypted uploaded artwork for the external device using the data encryption key associated with the ID of the transaction […] {¶ 0035 “…the digital art gallery server system can utilize digital rights management (DRM) schemes to protect against piracy and to further control usage rights to limited edition digital artworks. Art viewing devices can include image and/or video decoders that implement DRM using one or more DRM certificates (i.e. keys) to decode encrypted content received from the digital edition distribution server. In various embodiments, the digital art gallery server system can include a DRM server to implement various DRM schemes”}
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe in view of Koenig, to include the elements of using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset for asset acquisition transaction of Drouin. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a platform to sell protected, secured and valid digital asset. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request, and Koenig discloses using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction. Drouin is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, and a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction as well as using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe in view of Koenig, as well as Drouin 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 Moshe/Koenig/Drouin.
The combination of Moshe in view of Koenig, and in view of Drouin does not explicitly disclose “…and wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork”.
However, Zhao teaches “…and wherein the computer extracts the ID of the transaction from the watermark embedded in the uploaded artwork and identifies, based on the extracted ID of the transaction, the first information regarding the acquisition request of the uploaded artwork” {see at least ¶¶ 0019-0020 “…the information extraction component comprises a watermark detector configured to extract an embedded watermark from the content to obtain at least a first portion of the embedded watermark payload corresponding to the content identifier, and the transmitter is configured to transmit at least the first portion of the embedded watermark payload to the one or more tag servers…”, and ¶ 0050}.
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe in view of Koenig, and in view of Drouin, to include the elements of extracting the unique identifier from the watermark of Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured and protected transaction identifier. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request, Koenig discloses using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, and Drouin discloses using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction. Zhao is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a secured and protected transaction identifier, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, and a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, and using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction as well as having a secured and protected transaction identifier, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe in view of Koenig, and Drouin as well as Zhao 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 Moshe/Koenig/Drouin/Zhao.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12 and 14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshe et al., (US 20160162961 A1) in view of Koenig et al., (US 20200311646 A1)in view of Drouin et al (US 20140222607 A1) in view of Zhao et al., (US 20140074855 A1), and further in view of Dehaeck et al. (US 20150058202 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 8 and 14, the combination of Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1, 7 and 13 respectively above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Dehaeck discloses wherein the watermark includes a QR code {¶ 0054 “With respect to digital works and linking the works with an author and the system in general, the system may be configured to modify or otherwise augment the digital work in order to provide identification information and associate the modified digital work with the author as well as one or more owners. Augmentation or modification of the digital work may be done by way of appending data to the digital work file (e.g., …adding graphical, textual or other identifiers in the digital work (e.g., watermark, QR code, hyperlink, serial number, identification number), or any combination thereof…”}.
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao, to include the elements of appending a QR code to a digital file of Dehaeck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a platform to sell protected, secured and valid digital asset. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request, Koenig discloses using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, Drouin discloses using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and Zhao discloses having a secured and protected transaction identifier. Dehaeck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of appending a QR code to a digital file, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, and a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and having a secured and protected transaction identifier as well as appending a QR code to a digital file, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao as well as Dehaeck, 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 Moshe/Koenig/Drouin/Zhao/Dehaeck.
With respect to claims 5, 11 and 17, the combination of Moshe and Koenig in view of Drouin teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1, 7 and 13 respectively above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Dehaeck discloses, comprising: generating a pair of a public key and a secret key (e.g. {¶¶ 0049-0050, 0054}, and applying the public key to encrypt the data encryption key {¶¶ 0049-0050, 0054}.
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao, to include the elements of using cryptographic keys of Dehaeck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a platform to sell protected, secured and valid digital asset transaction. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request, Koenig discloses using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, Drouin discloses using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and Zhao discloses having a secured and protected transaction identifier. Dehaeck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using cryptographic keys in a digital asset transaction, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, and a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and having a secured and protected transaction identifier as well as using cryptographic keys in a digital asset transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao as well as Dehaeck, 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 Moshe/Koenig/Drouin/Zhao/Dehaeck.
With respect to claims 6, 12 and 18, the combination of Moshe, Koenig and Drouin in view of Dehaeck teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 5, 11 and 17, respectively above.
Furthermore, Dehaeck discloses, comprising: transmitting the secret key to the external device {¶¶ 0049-0050, 0054}.
Therefore, 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 the artwork acquisition transaction with the device of Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao, to include the elements of using cryptographic keys of Dehaeck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a platform to sell protected, secured and valid digital asset transaction. Furthermore, Moshe discloses digital artwork acquisition request, Koenig discloses using a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, Drouin discloses using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and Zhao discloses having a secured and protected transaction identifier. Dehaeck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using cryptographic keys in a digital asset transaction, in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction. Because both digital asset acquisition request, and a blockchain network for asset acquisition transaction, using an edition number [e.g., transaction ID] that uniquely identifies each digital asset edition for asset acquisition transaction, and having a secured and protected transaction identifier as well as using cryptographic keys in a digital asset transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context of asset acquisition transaction, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Moshe in view of Koenig, in view of Drouin, and in view of Zhao as well as Dehaeck, 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 Moshe/Koenig/Drouin/Zhao/Dehaeck.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
Pamela Rice (US 10250381 B1) - (col 1 line 56-col 2 line 28 “Another particular type of blockchain (e.g., Ethereum) extends Bitcoin to support user-defined and Turing-complete state machines. An Ethereum blockchain lets the user define complex computations and/or instructions in a form of a smart contract, which includes executable code designed to perform one or more actions based on the occurrence of a condition. An Ethereum smart contract, for example, defines, in executable code, a computer protocol that facilitates, verifies, and/or enforces negotiation or performance of a contract. Once deployed, a smart contract is executed on all Ethereum nodes as a replicated state machine…’, col 12 lines 38-65 “The data identifying the content provider may be any identifier, including, for example, a public key associated with the content provider or some other form of identification. The data identifying the content provider may be used in a variety of ways, such as an identifier for identifying the blockchain to be used to validate the content, an identifier enabling a
transfer of compensation from the content provider, and/or the like”).
2) Chan et al., (US 20150215770 A1).- Method of Pairing Mobile Devices – relates to a method of pairing mobile devices, particularly but not exclusively, for transferring data between paired mobile devices.
3) (US 20190366475 A1) – Scarselli et al., Asset Identification, Registration, Tracking and Commercialization Apparatuses and Methods - relates to tokenization and use of assets, asset management and utilization and, more particularly, but not exclusively, to management of assets such as
precious stones.
4) (US 10469487 B1) – Griffin et al., Biometric Electronic Signature Authenticated Key Exchange Token – relates to generating a biometric electronic signature authenticated key exchange (“BESAKE”) token.
5) (US 20160162961 A1) – Moshe et al., Method for Verifying, Controlling and Limiting Distribution of Digital Artwork Files by User, Involves Allowing First User to Relinquish Individual Copy, And Making Copy Available to Second User by Supplying File Upon Relinquishing – relates to a system and method for ownership and transfer of digital art.
6) (US 20150058202 A1) – David Dahaeck, Systems and Methods for Tracking and Controlling Ownership of Digital works and Rewarding Authors, Artists and/or their representatives Over Time - relates to systems and methods for tracking digital works and compensating authors thereof. Specifically, this invention relates to systems and methods for tracking and controlling ownership of digital works (e.g., images, video, sound, code, written works) and the compensation of the authors/artists and/or their representatives of such digital works throughout the lifespan of the digital work, both in the primary market as in the secondary market.
7) (US 20210019430 A1) – Tang Xiaojun - Digital artwork display device, management method, and electronic device - relate to a digital artwork display device, a digital artwork management method, and an electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights