DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This final office action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 3/13/2026 (“Amendment”).
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8-10, and 15-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objection
As per claim 8, the recitation of by a server computing system should be followed by a colon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim(s) have been amended to recite in part wherein the private key is configured to … provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
The Specification mentions exclusivity in paragraphs [0004] and [0028]. In paragraph [0004] describes summary of the invention, i.e., provided is a means for leveraging blockchain and the feature of NFT, while also providing a means of exclusive access as is typical in asset curation. Paragraph [0028], exclusivity is described as how to provide exclusivity of a digital asset to the market. For example, [I]f a person buys a physical piece of artwork, standard practice implies that they have exclusive access to it, and the ability to share with whom they choose.
While the Specification provides support of receiving a confirmation that the user has obtained ownership of the NFT and providing a private key to the user, wherein the private key is used to decrypt the NFT (see [0008]), the Specification does not provide support for wherein the private key is configured to … provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership as the Specification merely describes that the private key is provided to the user who has obtained ownership of the NFT (i.e., payment) so that the private key is used to decrypt the NFT. The term exclusive is defined in Merriam-Webster as limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group. One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would appreciate that the private key could potentially be issued or shared with others for accessing the digital asset.
As per claim 8, the claim recites, in part, updating one or more ledgers with an authorization to access. Instant Specification mentions updating of one or more ledgers in paragraph [0051]. The paragraph, however, is absent that the one or more ledgers are updated with an authorization to access.
Furthermore, there is no support of one computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one processor that allows the creator computing system, a network, and a server computing system to perform the recited functions. The applicant points to paragraphs [0009] and [0010] that broadly state that the computing system comprises one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media. However, these paragraphs do not show support for one processor executing instructions on one computer medium for the three different systems (i.e., creator computing system, server computing system, and the network) to perform the recited functions. Even if the specification show support, the specification does not show how one processor executing instruction on one computer medium executes so that the three different systems perform the recited functions.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 8, the claim recites in part updating one or more ledgers with an authorization to access. In light of the Specification no showing support of updating one or more ledgers with an authorization to access, the scope of the claim is unclear as to what authorization might be in the context that the one or more ledgers is updated with an authorization to access. Furthermore, the claim does not illuminate object of the access.
As per claim 15, the claim recites in part idling, by the ledger, while an authorization has not been provided. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as the claim does not illuminate what is idled while an authorization has not been provided.
The dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 8-14 are directed to a system, while claims 15-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A method of digital asset curation, the method comprising:
providing, by a creator, a digital asset and a digital asset descriptor portion, wherein the digital asset comprises a non-fungible token (NFT) and the digital asset descriptor portion is an NFT descriptor associated with the NFT;
performing, by the creator, an authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD) process, wherein the digital asset is encrypted and authenticated and the digital asset descriptor portion is authenticated thereby generating a limited access non-fungible token (LANFT);
providing, by the network, the LANFT to a user; and
providing, by a server, a private key to the user, wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the NFT and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
(Bold emphasis added on the additional element(s))
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites limiting access to particular asset in which the asset is encrypted while the description of the asset is not to create what is called LANFT in the claim. The claim achieves this by utilizing AEAD process of encrypting and authenticating the asset and authenticating the description without encryption. This LANFT is provided to a user along with a private key that is used to decrypt the encrypted asset. The claim further recites the use of the private key in that the private key provides exclusive access of the digital asset which is based in part on ownership.
The examiner submits that the protecting of an asset, i.e., access to the asset, and providing access to the asset based on ownership is an abstract idea, i.e., certain method of organizing human activities, i.e., mitigating risk. The encryption/decryption recitations in the claim, i.e., AEAD encryption, are also an abstract idea as they are mathematical concepts. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 is significantly similar to claim 1 with exception to updating one or more ledgers with authorization, i.e., record keeping. As such, claim 8 recites abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 is significantly similar to claim 1 with additional recitation of idling, by the ledger, while an authorization has not been provided (i.e., access to the asset is idled while an authorization has not been provided. As such, claim 15 recites abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., digital asset comprising NFT, network, creator computing system, server system, one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium, are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.
Furthermore, the additional elements of non-fungible token amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited system or the system’s component(s) that is responsible for performing the step(s).
The dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite that the descriptor further comprises a non-interactive zero knowledge proof, wherein the non-interactive zero knowledge proof is configured to confirm the ownership or possession of the NFT. First, the examiner submits that the claimed expression of “proof that is configured to …” is merely an intended use of the proof. Further, the examiner submits that the use of zero-knowledge proof is a mathematical concept.
The dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 further describe what the descriptor includes and what the data describes, i.e., stored data. As such, the description is non-functional descriptive material.
The dependent claims 4 and 11 recite the abstract idea of rights of the past owners, i.e., that they are able to view the asset.
The dependent claims 5, 12, and 18 further describe what the asset are, hence recite abstract idea.
The dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 further recite the AEAD process used in authentication encryption and associated data which is a mathematical concept applied to the asset and its description., hence recite abstract idea.
The dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 further recite the abstract idea of ledgering concept. The additional element of blockchain is recited at high level generality that such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 20230081488 (“Ramaswamy”) in view of US Patent No. 7,650,311 (“Kim”), in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2013/0117824 (“Naslund”).
Per claims 1 and 7, Ramaswamy discloses a method of for providing limited access non-fungible tokens, the method comprising:
providing, by a creator ([0032], creators), a digital asset and a digital asset descriptor portion, wherein the digital asset comprises a non-fungible token (NFT) and the digital asset descriptor portion is an NFT descriptor associated with the NFT (see [0020], text word, pixels, audio, image, video, multimedia files, etc.; [0026], NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audios, and other types of digital files; [0041], can manage and provide a creation tool functionality for NFT related media content; [0065], content as well as information about the NFT/preview content is uploaded and the NFT can be minted);
performing, by the creator, locking of the digital asset ([0065], NFT can be locked as well);
after generating the locked digital asset, posting the locked digital asset to a blockchain ([0026], NFT stored on a digital ledger called blockchain; [0065]);
providing, by the network, the NFT to a user ([0064], in order to access the pay block, a user may need to pay a specified amount. In this way, the pay block creator can monetize the media content associated with the pay block)(by posting NFT to the ledger, the prior art teaches updating of the one or more ledgers with an authorization to access);
unlocking, by a server, the NFT ([0046], offer to unlock upon purchase; [0064]);
Ramaswamy does not specifically teach that the NFT portion, i.e., content, is encrypted while the descriptor, i.e., information comprising one of artist, title, preview, etc., is nonencrypted thereby the descriptor being viewable by a user prior to obtaining ownership of the NFT and providing a private key to the user wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the NFT and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
Kim, however, teaches encrypting of the content while the sample of the content is nonencrypted such that a user may view the sample and purchase and obtain a private key (i.e., decryption key) wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the encrypted content and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership (see c1 l37-42; c2 l10-13, a user to make on-line purchase of the decryption key, the decryption key in Kim provides exclusive access to the recording via purchasing (i.e., ownership) of the encrypted source data; c2 l5-8, encrypting moving picture data and audio data and non-encrypted sample data … to induce a user to make purchase of the decryption key; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the encrypting the content while providing non-encrypted sample of the content to Ramaswamy as providing protection for the content while providing ability for the potential buyers to sample the content to see whether the content is what he or she wants or expects (c1 l52-62).
The applicant is reminded that what the private key is configured to do, i.e., provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership is intended use of the private key. For example, as long as the private key is able to decrypt the encrypted content and the private key distribution is based on ownership, i.e., payment for the encrypted content, the intended use of the private key whether the private key is intended to provide exclusive access or shared access, the description of intended use does not move to distinguish over the prior art.
Ramaswamy/Kim does not specifically teach the encryption technique as claimed, particularly of the use of AEAD process in which the NFT is encrypted and authenticated while the descriptor is authenticated without encryption.
Naslund, an analogous art of encryption, teaches AEAD encryption technique that supports the authentication message consisting both plaintext and cipertext in which the associated data is transmitted as plaintext ([0052], AE-scheme that supports the authentication of messages consisting of both plaintext and ciphertext in this manner is called an Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) solution, where the "associated data" (also called a header) refers to the portion of the message that is transmitted as plaintext. Some examples of AEAD solutions are EAX, GCM, and LetterSoup).
As Ramaswamy/Kim teaches encryption technique in which portion is encrypted while other portion is in plaintext while AEAD provides authentication of non-encrypted data together with the encrypted information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the AEAD process as the encryption technique in the portions of the Ramaswamy/Kim for in providing confidentiality and authentication thereby enhancing security.
Per claims 8 and 14, Ramaswamy discloses a system for generating limited access non-fungible tokens, the system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to (see Fig. 1):
by a creator computing system ([0032], creators): providing a digital asset and a digital asset descriptor portion, wherein the digital asset comprises a non-fungible token (NFT) and the digital asset descriptor portion is an NFT descriptor associated with the NFT (see [0020], text word, pixels, audio, image, video, multimedia files, etc.; [0026], NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audios, and other types of digital files; [0041], can manage and provide a creation tool functionality for NFT related media content; [0065], content as well as information about the NFT/preview content is uploaded and the NFT can be minted); performing, by the creator, locking of the digital asset ([0065], NFT can be locked as well);
by a server computing system: unlocking the NFT ([0046], offer to unlock upon purchase; [0064])
by a network: providing the NFT to a user ([0064], in order to access the pay block, a user may need to pay a specified amount. In this way, the pay block creator can monetize the media content associated with the pay block);
after generating the locked digital asset, posting the locked digital asset to a blockchain ([0026], NFT stored on a digital ledger called blockchain; [0065]);
updating one or more ledgers with an authorization to access (by posting the digital asset to a blockchain allowing user to access the locked digital asset, the reference teaches updating one or more ledgers with an authorization to access).
Ramaswamy does not specifically teach that the NFT portion, i.e., content, is encrypted while the descriptor, i.e., information comprising one of artist, title, preview, etc., is nonencrypted thereby the descriptor being viewable by a user prior to obtaining ownership of the NFT and providing a private key to the user wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the NFT and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
Kim, however, teaches encrypting of the content while the sample of the content is nonencrypted such that a user may view the sample and purchase and obtain a private key (i.e., decryption key) wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the encrypted content and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership (see c1 l37-42; c2 l10-13, a user to make on-line purchase of the decryption key, the decryption key in Kim provides exclusive access to the recording via purchasing (i.e., ownership) of the encrypted source data; c2 l5-8, encrypting moving picture data and audio data and non-encrypted sample data … to induce a user to make purchase of the decryption key; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the encrypting the content while providing non-encrypted sample of the content to Ramaswamy as providing protection for the content while providing ability for the potential buyers to sample the content to see whether the content is what he or she wants or expects (c1 l52-62).
The applicant is reminded that what the private key is configured to do, i.e., provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership is intended use of the private key. For example, as long as the private key is able to decrypt the encrypted content and the private key distribution is based on ownership, i.e., payment for the encrypted content, the intended use of the private key whether the private key is intended to provide exclusive access or shared access, the description of intended use does not move to distinguish over the prior art.
Ramaswamy/Kim does not specifically teach the encryption technique as claimed, particularly of the use of AEAD process in which the NFT is encrypted and authenticated while the descriptor is authenticated without encryption.
Naslund, an analogous art of encryption, teaches AEAD encryption technique that supports the authentication message consisting both plaintext and cipertext in which the associated data is transmitted as plaintext ([0052], AE-scheme that supports the authentication of messages consisting of both plaintext and ciphertext in this manner is called an Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) solution, where the "associated data" (also called a header) refers to the portion of the message that is transmitted as plaintext. Some examples of AEAD solutions are EAX, GCM, and LetterSoup).
Hence, as Ramaswamy/Kim teaches encryption technique in which portion is encrypted while other portion is in plaintext while AEAD provides authentication of non-encrypted data together with the encrypted information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the AEAD process as the encryption technique in the portions of the Ramaswamy/Kim for in providing confidentiality and authentication thereby enhancing security.
Per claims 15 and 20, Ramaswamy discloses a method of digital asset curation, the method comprising: (see Fig. 1):
providing, by a creator ([0032], creators), a digital asset and a digital asset descriptor portion, wherein the digital asset comprises a non-fungible token (NFT) and the digital asset descriptor portion is an NFT descriptor associated with the NFT (see [0020], text word, pixels, audio, image, video, multimedia files, etc.; [0026], NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audios, and other types of digital files; [0041], can manage and provide a creation tool functionality for NFT related media content; [0065], content as well as information about the NFT/preview content is uploaded and the NFT can be minted);
performing, by the creator, locking of the digital asset ([0065], NFT can be locked as well);
after generating the locked digital asset, posting the locked digital asset to a blockchain, ([0026], NFT stored on a digital ledger called blockchain; [0065])
unlocking the NFT by the server computing system ([0046], offer to unlock upon purchase; [0064])
providing, by the network, the NFT to a user, wherein the NFT descriptor is accessed by a user ([0064], in order to access the pay block, a user may need to pay a specified amount. In this way, the pay block creator can monetize the media content associated with the pay block; [0065], media teaser/preview content can also be uploaded);
idling, by the ledger, while an authorization has been provided ([0046], offer to unlock upon purchase)(by disclosing requiring purchase to access the block with NFT, the disclosure reads on the claimed expression).
Ramaswamy does not specifically teach that the NFT portion, i.e., content, is encrypted while the descriptor, i.e., information comprising one of artist, title, preview, etc., is nonencrypted thereby the descriptor being viewable by a user prior to obtaining ownership of the NFT and providing a private key to the user wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the NFT and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
Kim, however, teaches encrypting of the content while the sample of the content is nonencrypted such that a user may view the sample and purchase and obtain a private key (i.e., decryption key) wherein the private key is configured to decrypt the encrypted content and provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership (see c1 l37-42; c2 l10-13, a user to make on-line purchase of the decryption key, the decryption key in Kim provides exclusive access to the recording via purchasing (i.e., ownership) of the encrypted source data; c2 l5-8, encrypting moving picture data and audio data and non-encrypted sample data … to induce a user to make purchase of the decryption key; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the encrypting the content while providing non-encrypted sample of the content to Ramaswamy as providing protection for the content while providing ability for the potential buyers to sample the content to see whether the content is what he or she wants or expects (c1 l52-62).
The applicant is reminded that what the private key is configured to do, i.e., provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership is intended use of the private key. For example, as long as the private key is able to decrypt the encrypted content and the private key distribution is based on ownership, i.e., payment for the encrypted content, the intended use of the private key whether the private key is intended to provide exclusive access or shared access, the description of intended use does not move to distinguish over the prior art.
Ramaswamy/Kim does not specifically teach the encryption technique as claimed, particularly of the use of AEAD process in which the NFT is encrypted and authenticated while the descriptor is authenticated without encryption.
Naslund, an analogous art of encryption, teaches AEAD encryption technique that supports the authentication message consisting both plaintext and cipertext in which the associated data is transmitted as plaintext ([0052], AE-scheme that supports the authentication of messages consisting of both plaintext and ciphertext in this manner is called an Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) solution, where the "associated data" (also called a header) refers to the portion of the message that is transmitted as plaintext. Some examples of AEAD solutions are EAX, GCM, and LetterSoup).
As Ramaswamy/Kim teaches encryption technique in which portion is encrypted while other portion is in plaintext while AEAD provides authentication of non-encrypted data together with the encrypted information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the AEAD process as the encryption technique in the portions of the Ramaswamy/Kim for in providing confidentiality and authentication thereby enhancing security.
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund further teach wherein the NFT descriptor includes one or more of a pixelated NFT version, a watermarked NFT version, and a NFT descriptive data, wherein the descriptive data describes the digital asset (Ramaswamy: [0065], file type, artist/creator, title, display name, etc).
Furthermore, description of what the descriptor includes is non-functional descriptive material.
As per claims 4 and 11, Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund by disclosing provisioning of the decryption key for accessing the content as described above teaches wherein the NFT is only viewable by past owners of the NFT (i.e., anyone who has the key to the content is able to access the content).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund further teaches wherein the NFT is one of group consisting of a digital picture, movie, sound recording, game, software, or health data (see [0020], text word, pixels, audio, image, video, multimedia files, etc.).
As per claims 6, 13, and 19, Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund further teaches wherein the AEAD process includes a Message input, an Associated Data (AD) input and an AEAD output, the AEAD process configured to authenticate and encrypt the Message input, authenticate the AD message without encryption, and the AEAD output is a blockchain block data string including the authenticated and encrypted Message, wherein the Message input is associated with the NFT and the AD input is associated with the NFT descriptor (Neslund: [0052], AE-scheme that supports the authentication of messages consisting of both plaintext and ciphertext in this manner is called an Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) solution, where the "associated data" (also called a header) refers to the portion of the message that is transmitted as plaintext. Some examples of AEAD solutions are EAX, GCM, and LetterSoup)(Ramaswamy: [0020]; [0026]; [0065]).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Admitted Prior Art (“APA”).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund does not particularly teach wherein the NFT descriptor further comprises a non-interactive zero knowledge proof, wherein the non-interactive zero proof is configured to confirm the ownership or possession of the NFT.
APA, however, teaches non-interactive zero knowledge proof in confirming ownership.
As Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund generally teaches NFT exchange and use of information of the NFT (descriptor) as associated data as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the non-interactive zero knowledge proof configured to confirm ownership in the associated data in Ramaswamy/Kim/Naslund as the combination provides a technique of ensuring ownership of the NFT for establishing legal rights to the NFT.
The applicant is reminded that the description of what is included in the descriptor is non-functional descriptive material, particularly as the claims merely recite intended use of the description.
Response to Argument(s)
112(a)
Claims 8-14 remain rejected under 112(a). See above 112(a) section for details.
The applicant points to paragraphs [0009] and [0010] that broadly state that the computing system comprises one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media. However, these paragraphs do not show support for one processor executing instructions on one computer medium for the three different systems (i.e., creator computing system, server computing system, and the network) to perform functions. In other word, the specification show support for plurality of processor executing instruction on plurality of computer media for the three different systems performing functions, the specification does not show support or possession of one processor executing instructions on one computer medium for the three different systems performing functions. Even if the specification show support, the specification does not show how one processor executing instruction on one computer medium executes so that the three different systems perform the recited functions.
The claims are also rejected under 112(b) for the reasons outlined above in the 112(b) section
101
The applicant asserts in regards to claims 1 and 15 the claims are not directed to any judicial exception as the recitation of the method implemented by a computer system, authenticating, encrypting, generating an LANFT, providing the LANFT, and providing a private key used to decrypt, that controls full access to a digital asset through curation do not describe abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the court to be abstract … See page 11 of the Amendment.
In response, the examiner finds that the applicant attempts to conflate the Step 2A, 2nd prong test with the Step 2A, 1st prong test. The claims recite protecting of an asset, that is providing access to the asset based at least on ownership, which is a fundamental economic principle. The access or protection of the asset is achieved by recited technique of encryption/decryption, particularly the use of AEAD encryption. However, the AEAD encryption/decryption technique is an abstract idea as they are mathematical concepts. As such, the claims clearly recite abstract idea.
The applicant points to the argument presented in claims 1 and 15 and asserts that claim 8 is not directed to an abstract idea (page 10 of the Amendment). The examiner submits that claim 8 also recite abstract idea for the reasons outline in the response.
For these reasons, 101 rejections are maintained.
103
The applicant asserts that the reference individually and in combination fail to disclose a system or a method that provide(s) exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim clearly discloses provision of the decryption key upon purchase, i.e., ownership (see col. 1, lines 37-42; col. 2, lines 10-13, a user to make on-line purchase of the decryption key). The decryption key in Kim provides exclusive access to the recording via purchasing (i.e., ownership) of the encrypted source data.
Furthermore, the applicant is reminded that what the private key is configured to do, i.e., provide exclusive access to the digital asset, wherein exclusive access is based at least in part on ownership is intended use of the private key. For example, as long as the private key is able to decrypt the encrypted content and the private key distribution is based on ownership, i.e., payment for the encrypted content, the intended use of the private key whether the private key is intended to provide exclusive access or shared access, the description of intended use does not move to distinguish over the prior art.
Response to the Argument(s)
The claims 8-20 remain rejected under 112(a) for the reasons outline above.
The claims are rejected under 101 based on the claim amendment.
The obviousness rejection is added in light of the claim amendment(s).
Conclusion
Cited prior art does not teach wherein the selecting a machine learning model comprises: determining whether a machine learning model in the system at the third level is tailored for the type of the account with the institution; and if a machine learning model in the system at the third level is tailored for the type of the account with the institution, utilizing the machine learning model in the system at the third level that is tailored for the type of the account with the institution as the selected machine learning model to generate the authentication information (claims 3-5, 13-15, and 18-20).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20190205898 discloses using non-interactive zero-knowledge proving function for proving ownership;
US Patent Publication No. 20020080964 discloses watermark technique and removal on content
US Patent Publication No. US 20210248214 discloses media content management including creating a container file comprising media content and content metadata and cration of NFT container file and populating the NFT container file with salable content item and NFT metadata, offering the specified ownership rights to the salable content item for sale and updating the NFT container file to reflect a new owner of the ownership rights to the content item.
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 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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights