DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/01/2025.
a. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 19-20 are amended
b. Claims 5-6, 9, 17-18 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 19-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/476,288, filed on 12/20/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 in line 9 recites, "block chain", it should read "blockchain". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-14 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 15-16 are directed to a system, and claims 19-20 are directed to a computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 19) shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method of secure digital authentication of a physical product using a digital wallet of a user, the method comprising:
[B] operating a hardware blockchain generator to cryptographically generate, for the product including a consumer electronic device including one of a camera, television, audio device, robot, drone, mobile phone, tablet, printer, or computer, a tamper-resistant blockchain instance specific to the physical product;
[C] receiving a serial number for the product and cryptographically matching, at a processor, the serial number to the digital wallet of the user; adding the generated blockchain instance to the digital wallet;
[D] operating a hardware title transferor configured to cryptographically generate and pair a digital title token to the serial number associated with the product, the title token being bound to the blockchain instance;
[E] receiving a destination address of a buyer wallet; and
[F] securely transferring, using the hardware title transferor, the title token from the digital wallet of the user to the buyer wallet, thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 19) recites: a method for secure authentication of product ([A]); generating product(s) ([B]); receiving and matching the product number to the user’s wallet ([C]); generating and pairing title token to the product number ([D]); and receiving address and transferring the title ([E]-[F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at authenticating product.
This overall combination, covers sales activities or behaviors, business relationship (i.e., transferring from the seller to the buyer), because the claim language recites pairing the title and a number to product, receiving buyer’s wallet address, and transferring the title to the buyer. Such limitation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 19) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “digital,” “hardware, “including one of a camera, television, audio device, robot, drone, mobile phone, tablet, printer, or computer, a tamper-resistant blockchain,” “cryptographically,” “electronic,” “processor,” “blockchain, ” and “destination,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of authenticating product. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: digital ([A], [C]-[D], [F]), hardware ([B]-[E]), including one of a camera, television, audio device, robot, drone, mobile phone, tablet, printer, or computer, a tamper-resistant blockchain ([B]), cryptographically ([B]-[D]), electronic ([B]), processor ([C]), blockchain ([B]-[D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 19) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[F]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of authenticating product could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 15, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-14, 16, 20 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] prompting the user to provide user name and password to manage the digital wallet, wherein the prompting is performed by an authentication application executed by a controller to ensure secure hardware-anchored access.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein receiving and matching the serial number to the digital wallet is performed during an initial registration of the product, and wherein the initial registration causes the hardware blockchain generator to store an immutable anchor block ensuring non-repudiation of the registration event.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] enabling a rapid registration of additional products for registrations subsequent to the initial registration of the product by generating and pairing titles to serial numbers associated with the additional products with the digital wallet, wherein the hardware blockchain generator generates a separate blockchain instance for each additional product to maintain tamper-resistant integrity across multiple items.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the digital wallet is a trust wallet, executed by a controller and configured to store cryptographically secured blockchain instances and title tokens.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the trust wallet is a Web3 wallet, wherein Web3 functionality enables decentralized validation of the blockchain instance bound to the product's serial number.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the product includes a gaming device including one of a console or peripheral, and wherein the hardware blockchain generator binds the gaming device's hardware identifier to the blockchain instance for authenticity verification.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the product includes a home entertainment product including a DVD, a DVD's unique identification code being cryptographically bound to the blockchain instance to prevent duplication or unauthorized copying.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the product includes luxury goods including one of leather goods, clothing, shoes, luggage, handbags, eyewear, or jewelry, each having a product-specific identifier cryptographically encoded into the blockchain instance to preserve authenticity during resale.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the product includes vehicle products including one of automobiles, motorbikes, or accessories, wherein the hardware title transferor produces cryptographically validated ownership titles transferrable between wallets.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the product includes a digital asset including one of audio, video, photographic, and computer code created by retail consumers, and wherein the blockchain instance ensures tamper-resistant authorship verification.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] the processor to add user and product registration to the digital wallet of the user, wherein the processor stores registration metadata within the blockchain instance to maintain integrity across subsequent transfers.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the executable instructions that cause the computer to receive and match the serial number are performed during an initial registration of the product, and
[B] wherein the initial registration triggers generation of an immutable genesis block bound to the product.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldenby (US 20170046806 A1), in view of McGregor (US 20220114586 A1), in further view of Melika (US 20160350728 A1), in further view of Dalton (US 20220318788 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 15, 19. Haldenby discloses:
A method of secure digital authentication of a physical product using a digital wallet of a user, the method comprising: [see at least Fig. 1 (0043) client device 104 may execute an application program associated with and provided by business entity 150 such a mobile banking application and/or a mobile wallet application, to provide services in accordance with various embodiments. (0201) various embodiments may provide a mechanism to track a legitimate product through its lifecycle and to control and confirm transactions involving the legitimate product, thus reducing an ability of counterfeiters to enter and disrupt the marketplace.]
operating a … blockchain generator to cryptographically generate, for the product including a consumer electronic device including one of a camera, television, audio device, robot, drone, mobile phone, tablet, printer, or computer… instance specific to the physical product; [see at least (0153) At 726, the central authority or other node in the network generates a new block-chain associated with the product(s) ownership being tracked, using the genesis block generated at 724.]
Note: The Haldenby reference does not expressly disclose for the product including a consumer electronic device including one of a camera, television, audio device, robot, drone, mobile phone, tablet, printer, or computer. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
receiving a serial number for the product and [see at least (0152) At 722, the central authority … captures relevant information from the retailer, and, in various embodiments, from the first and second joint owners, for starting the hybrid-block chain ledger. This information includes the ownership ID, and all intended rules associated with the ownership ID … In various embodiments, this information also includes a product identifier (not shown) and all intended rules associated with the product identifier.]
adding the generated blockchain instance to the digital wallet; [see at least (0084) a device associated with user 108 (e.g., client device 102) may execute a stored software application (e.g., a wallet application) capable of obtaining a current version of a hybrid block-chain ledger, including genesis block 304]
Haldenby discloses serial number associated with the product, however, it does not disclose:
hardware … a tamper-resistant blockchain;
cryptographically matching, at a processor, the serial number to the digital wallet of the user;
operating a hardware title transferor configured to cryptographically generate and pair a digital title token to the serial number associated with the product, the title token being bound to the blockchain instance;
receiving a destination address of a buyer wallet; and
securely transferring, using the … title transferor, the title token from the digital wallet of the user to the buyer wallet, thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records.
Nonetheless, McGregor discloses:
cryptographically matching, at a processor, the serial number to the digital wallet of the user; [see at least (0118) The EI buyer computing device 926 includes a digital wallet 944 and the initial owner computing device 928 … Each of the digital wallets 944-946 is utilized to store a variety of information associated with one or more exchange items, such as balance information, pricing information, history of sale, brand affiliation, rules, conditions, use options, owner information, and security information to ensure trust of the content of the digital wallet.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby to include the features of McGregor. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to cryptographically match the serial number of associated with the product as taught by Haldenby with the digital wallet of McGregor. Haldenby discloses product with identifier. McGregor teaches matching the identifier of the product to the wallet. Because both Haldenby as well as McGregor are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses identifying product and its identifier to accurately perform transaction. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Haldenby as well as McGregor 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 Haldenby /McGregor.
The combination of Haldenby in view of McGregor discloses product associated with the user. However, the above combination does not disclose:
hardware … a tamper-resistant blockchain …
operating a hardware title transferor configured to cryptographically generate and pair a digital title token to the serial number associated with the product, the title token being bound to the blockchain instance;
receiving a destination address of a buyer wallet; and
securely transferring, using the … title transferor, the title token from the digital wallet of the user to the buyer wallet, thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records.
However, Melika discloses:
operating … title transferor configured to cryptographically generate and pair a digital title token to the serial number associated with the product, the title token being bound to the blockchain instance; [see at least Fig. 5, (0029) step 208, the application software creates an electronic title and adds the title to the customer's digital wallet through an encrypted transaction or an encrypted amount]
Note: Here, it is reasonable to infer under broadest reasonable interpretation that the action of pairing titles to the wallet is performed in a blockchain environment. Furthermore, the claim 1 further recites “the title token being bound to the blockchain instance”. However, the applicant’s specification on [0024] recites, “Thus, a product registration authentication wallet is for users wishing to confirm that their purchased products are not counterfeit (authenticity) and that the user may pass good title to such product to third parties if they resell them. This may help fight the proliferation of counterfeit goods and blunt the influence of global organized crime involved in the trade of counterfeit goods.” One of skill in the art would assume “bound” means title associated with the product and wallet. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
receiving a destination address of a buyer wallet; and [see at least Fig. 5 (0049) Displayed are two transaction records 52A, 52B. An issuance transaction 52A and a transaction to a recipient 52B. Bitcoin may include transaction with multiple inputs and outputs. In this case there are addresses associated with the application backend 54, the original owner and the title 56, and the recipient of a title 58]
Note: Here, it is reasonable to infer under broadest reasonable interpretation that product is a cryptocurrency(i.e., bitcoin). The applicant’s specification on [0018] recites “In another implementation, the digital wallet supports additional assets, such as those related to currencies, NFTs, and content, and the digital items include at least one of reward points, coins or tokens for services, crypto currencies, game digital merchandises, skins or cosmetic items for content use, and entitlements in services.” One of skill in the art would conclude that the bitcoin could be considered an asset (i.e., product). And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
securely transferring, using the … title transferor, the title token from the digital wallet of the user to the buyer wallet, thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records. [see at least (0036) the title is moved to a new party through hashed data representing this fact. With encoded amounts, a specific amount of crypto currency is moved from a digital wallet representing the original owner, to the digital wallet representing the recipient.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor to include the features of Melika. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the product of Haldenby, McGregor with the transferring of asset as taught by Melika to securely transfer asset. Haldenby, McGregor discloses product associated with the user. Melika teaches transferring of asset in a blockchain environment. Because both Haldenby, McGregor as well as Melika are implemented through field of blockchain and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor and technique of Melika to securely transfer the asset. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor as well as Melika 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 Haldenby, McGregor/Melika.
The combination of Haldenby, in view of McGregor, in further view of Melika discloses product associated with the user, and transferring the product. However, the above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika does not disclose:
hardware … a tamper-resistant blockchain
operating a hardware
thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records.
Nonetheless, Dalton discloses:
hardware … a tamper-resistant blockchain [see at least (0024) A module may in some instances refer to a set of software instructions that are executable by a computer system to perform the set of operations. Alternatively, a module may refer to hardware that is configured to perform the set of operations. A hardware module may constitute general-purpose hardware as well as a non- transitory computer-readable medium that stores program instructions, or specialized hardware such as a customized ASIC. (0027) The ledger, along with many aspects of blockchain, may be referred to as "decentralized" in that a central authority is typically not present. Because of this, the accuracy and integrity of the ledger cannot be attacked at a single, central location. Modifying the ledger at all, or a majority of, locations where it is stored is made difficult (i.e., temper-resistance) so as to protect the integrity of the ledger. This is due in large part because individuals associated with the nodes that make up the peer-to-peer network have a vested interest in the accuracy of the ledger.]
Note: The applicant’s specification on [0037] recites, “the blocks 320, 330, 340, 350, and 370 are configured entirely with hardware including one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), general purpose microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry.” One of skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude based on the applicant’s specification that a hardware is configured to performed the software (i.e., the system 300 includes a processor 320, a blockchain generator 330, a digital wallet 340, and a title transferor 350) see applicant’s specification [0034]. Thus, the hardware as disclosed by the Dalton reference reads the hardware recited by the applicant’s specification because the hardware disclosed by the Dalton reference is configured to perform set of operation. Therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
operating a hardware [see at least (0024) A module may in some instances refer to a set of software instructions that are executable by a computer system to perform the set of operations. Alternatively, a module may refer to hardware that is configured to perform the set of operations. A hardware module may constitute general-purpose hardware as well as a non- transitory computer-readable medium that stores program instructions, or specialized hardware such as a customized ASIC.]
Note: The applicant’s specification on [0037] recites, “the blocks 320, 330, 340, 350, and 370 are configured entirely with hardware including one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), general purpose microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry.” One of skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude based on the applicant’s specification that a hardware is configured to performed the software (i.e., the system 300 includes a processor 320, a blockchain generator 330, a digital wallet 340, and a title transferor 350) see applicant’s specification [0034]. Thus, the hardware as disclosed by the Dalton reference reads the hardware recited by the applicant’s specification because the hardware disclosed by the Dalton reference is configured to perform set of operation. Therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records. [see at least (0027) The ledger, along with many aspects of blockchain, may be referred to as "decentralized" in that a central authority is typically not present. Because of this, the accuracy and integrity of the ledger cannot be attacked at a single, central location. Modifying the ledger at all, or a majority of, locations where it is stored is made difficult (i.e., temper-resistance) so as to protect the integrity (i.e., data-integrity) of the ledger. This is due in large part because individuals associated with the nodes that make up the peer-to-peer network have a vested interest in the accuracy of the ledger.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika to include the features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely transfer asset (i.e., products) using the products as disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika with the security features of using the blockchain as taught by Dalton. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses transferring of product. Dalton teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain and both references addresses securely transferring product from one party to another party using the security features of the blockchain environment as taught by Dalton with the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika as well as Dalton 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 Haldenby, McGregor, Melika /Dalton.
Regarding Claim 2. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
prompting the user to provide user name and password to manage the digital wallet,
wherein the prompting is performed by an authentication application executed by a controller to ensure secure hardware-anchored access. [see at least (0057) the stored customer data may, for example, include personal information … data may also include authentication credentials associated with registered users of the financial institution, e.g., a user name, a user-specified password … specified by the users. (0076) perform operations that create a new transaction and generate a new pair of public and private block-chain keys for user 110 in response to a verification of particular authentication credentials]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein … to ensure secure hardware-anchored access. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claims 3, 20. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 19. McGregor further discloses:
wherein receiving and matching the serial number to the digital wallet is performed during an initial registration of the product, and [see at least (0118) Each of the digital wallets 944-946 is utilized to store a variety of information associated with one or more exchange items … owner information, and security information to ensure trust of the content of the digital wallet. (0186) the setup processing 936 establishes the role of the exchange item database 934 associated with the EI serial number 005 … owner computing device 928 updates a digital wallet 946 of the initial owner computing device 928 with an owner table. The owner table includes one or more of a list of EI serial numbers, and for each EI, an identifier of an issuer]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of McGregor. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely store the product information using the product as taught by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the product information as taught by McGregor. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses product associated with the user. McGregor further teaches the product information. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as McGregor are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses securely storing the product information using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the product registration feature of McGregor. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
wherein the initial registration causes the hardware blockchain generator to store an immutable anchor block ensuring non-repudiation of the registration event. [see at least (00106) A level of immutability of a blockchain may depend on a type of the blockchain. For example, changing content may be difficult in a public blockchain due to its possible impact on a large number of users.]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein the initial registration causes the hardware blockchain generator to store an immutable anchor block ensuring non-repudiation of the registration event. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Haldenby further discloses:
enabling a rapid registration of additional products for registrations subsequent to the initial registration of the … [see at least Fig. 7B (0150) In embodiments, the product identifier can be a serial number for the product or other unique identifying factor. This ownership ID may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by the central authority (708) or by any other suitable source. (0177) At 756, the central authority generates a new genesis block for a new hybrid block chain. This genesis block includes the new ownership ID information as well as the rules engine and event trigger list (described above) associated with the new ownership ID. At 758, the central authority or other node in the network generates a new block-chain associated with the new product(s) ownership being tracked, using the genesis block generated at 756.]
Melika further discloses:
… and pairing titles to serial numbers … [see at least Fig. 5, (0029) step 208, the application software creates an electronic title and adds the title to the customer's digital wallet through an encrypted transaction or an encrypted amount]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Melika. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with the product using the product as disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with titles as taught by Melika. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses information associated with the product. Melika teaches pairing titles with wallet of the user. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Melika are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the titles of Melika to accurately store information associated with the product. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
wherein the hardware … blockchain instance for each additional product to maintain tamper-resistant integrity across multiple items. [see at least (0027) the accuracy and integrity of the ledger cannot be attacked at a single, central location. Modifying the ledger at all, or a majority of, locations where it is stored is made difficult so as to protect the integrity of the ledger.]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware … blockchain instance for each additional product to maintain tamper-resistant integrity across multiple items. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
… blockchain generator binds the gaming device's … identifier to the blockchain instance for authenticity verification. [see at least (0150) the product identifier can be a serial number for the product or other unique identifying factor. This ownership ID may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by the central authority (708) or by any other suitable source.]
McGregor further discloses:
wherein the product includes a gaming device including one of a console or peripheral, and [see at least (0070) each of the user devices 12-16 may be a portable computing device and/or a fixed computing device. A portable computing device may be a social networking device, a gaming device, a cell phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, a digital music player, a digital video player, a laptop computer, a handheld computer, a tablet, a video game controller, and/or any other portable device that includes a computing core]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of McGregor. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely store to the product information using the product as taught by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the product information as taught by McGregor. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses product associated with the user. McGregor further teaches the product information. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as McGregor are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses securely storing the product information using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the product registration feature of McGregor. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
wherein the hardware … hardware [see at least (0024) A module may in some instances refer to a set of software instructions that are executable by a computer system to perform the set of operations. Alternatively, a module may refer to hardware that is configured to perform the set of operations. A hardware module may constitute general-purpose hardware as well as a non- transitory computer-readable medium that stores program instructions, or specialized hardware such as a customized ASIC.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
wherein the product includes a home entertainment product including a DVD, a DVD's unique identification code being cryptographically bound to the blockchain instance to prevent duplication or unauthorized copying. [see at least (0150) the product identifier can be a serial number for the product or other unique identifying factor. This ownership ID may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by the central authority (708) or by any other suitable source]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein the product includes a home entertainment product including a DVD, a DVD's unique identification code being cryptographically bound to the blockchain instance to prevent duplication or unauthorized copying. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 12. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
wherein the product includes luxury goods including one of leather goods, clothing, shoes, luggage, handbags, eyewear, or jewelry, each having a product-specific identifier cryptographically encoded into the blockchain instance to preserve authenticity during resale. [see at least (0152) At 722, the central authority … captures relevant information from the retailer, and, in various embodiments, from the first and second joint owners, for starting the hybrid-block chain ledger … . In various embodiments, this information also includes a product identifier (not shown) and all intended rules associated with the product identifier. For example, there may be rules relating to the maintenance, performance, and/or usage of the product. In various embodiments, the product ID can be a serial number for the product, or other unique identifying factor, and may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by a manufacturer's (not shown) tracking system, by the central authority (708), or by any other suitable source.]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein the product includes luxury goods including one of leather goods, clothing, shoes, luggage, handbags, eyewear, or jewelry. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 13. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
wherein the product includes vehicle products including one of automobiles, motorbikes, or accessories, [see at least (0150) In various embodiments, the ownership identifier is associated with all of the entities having a respective registered ownership interest in the product. In embodiments, the ownership identifier is any suitable unique identifying factor. In embodiments, the product identifier can be a serial number for the product or other unique identifying factor. This ownership ID may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by the central authority (708) or by any other suitable source.]
Note: The above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not expressly disclose wherein the product includes vehicle products including one of automobiles, motorbikes, or accessories. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Melika further discloses:
… title transferor produces cryptographically validated ownership titles transferrable between wallets. [see at least (0036) the title is moved to a new party through hashed data representing this fact. With encoded amounts, a specific amount of crypto currency is moved from a digital wallet representing the original owner, to the digital wallet representing the recipient.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Melika. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with the product using the product as disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with titles as taught by Melika. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses information associated with the product. Melika teaches pairing titles with wallet of the user. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Melika are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the titles of Melika to accurately store information associated with the product. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
wherein hardware … [see at least (0024) A module may in some instances refer to a set of software instructions that are executable by a computer system to perform the set of operations. Alternatively, a module may refer to hardware that is configured to perform the set of operations. A hardware module may constitute general-purpose hardware as well as a non- transitory computer-readable medium that stores program instructions, or specialized hardware such as a customized ASIC.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Haldenby further discloses:
wherein the product … created by retail consumers, and [see at least (0151) At 720, the ownership ID and other pertinent information about the product normally maintained by a retailer (e.g., product details, purchase details, etc.) are entered into a product ownership database of the retailer.]
McGregor further discloses
wherein the product includes a digital asset including one of audio, video, photographic, and computer code [see at least (0072) A digital good is digital item that can legally be sold or resold by an individual. For example, the digital item may be an original digital book, an original digital photograph (i.e., photographic), an original video clip (i.e., video), a purchased video game, a purchased software application (i.e., computer code), a purchase video, a purchased music file, a purchased digital book, a purchased audio book (i.e., audio), etc.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of McGregor. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely store to the product information using the product as taught by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the product information as taught by McGregor. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses product associated with the user. McGregor further teaches the product information. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as McGregor are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses securely storing the product information using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the product registration feature of McGregor. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
wherein the blockchain instance ensures tamper-resistant authorship verification. [see at least (0027) Each transaction can be verified by the distributed ledger and only verified transactions are added to the ledger. The ledger, along with many aspects of blockchain, may be referred to as "decentralized" in that a central authority is typically not present. Because of this, the accuracy and integrity of the ledger cannot be attacked at a single, central location. Modifying the ledger at all, or a majority of, locations where it is stored is made difficult so as to protect the integrity of the ledger.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 15. McGregor further discloses:
add user and product registration to the digital wallet of the user, [see at least (0118) Each of the digital wallets 944-946 is utilized to store a variety of information associated with one or more exchange items, such as balance information, pricing information, history of sale, brand affiliation, rules, conditions, use options, owner information, and security information to ensure trust of the content of the digital wallet. (0186) The initial owner computing device 928 updates (i.e., add) a digital wallet 946 of the initial owner computing device 928 with an owner table. The owner table includes one or more of a list of EI serial numbers, and for each EI, an identifier of an issuer, associated EI information, use options, EI rules associated with the EI, and conditions associated with the EI.]
wherein the processor stores registration metadata within the … across subsequent transfers. [see at least (0186) The initial owner computing device 928 updates a digital wallet 946 of the initial owner computing device 928 with an owner table. The owner table includes one or more of a list of EI serial numbers, and for each EI, an identifier of an issuer, associated EI information, use options, EI rules associated with the EI, and conditions associated with the EI. ]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of McGregor. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely store to the product information using the product as taught by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the product information as taught by McGregor. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses product associated with the user. McGregor further teaches the product information. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as McGregor are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses securely storing the product information using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the product registration feature of McGregor. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dalton further discloses:
… blockchain instance to maintain integrity … [see at least (0027) Each transaction can be verified by the distributed ledger and only verified transactions are added to the ledger. The ledger, along with many aspects of blockchain, may be referred to as "decentralized" in that a central authority is typically not present. Because of this, the accuracy and integrity of the ledger cannot be attacked at a single, central location. Modifying the ledger at all, or a majority of, locations where it is stored is made difficult so as to protect the integrity of the ledger.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Dalton. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton using the security features of Dalton . Haldenby, McGregor, Melika discloses information associated with the product. Dalton further teaches security features of blockchain. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Dalton are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with security feature of Dalton to securely store the product information. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldenby, in view of McGregor, in further view of Melika, in further view of Dalton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rush (US 20240005354 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. McGregor further discloses:
wherein the digital wallet executed by a controller and configured to store cryptographically secured blockchain instances and title tokens. [see at least Fig. 5, (0029) step 208, the application software creates an electronic title and adds the title to the customer's digital wallet through an encrypted transaction or an encrypted amount]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the additional features of Melika. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately store the information associated with the product using the product as disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with titles as taught by Melika. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses information associated with the product. Melika teaches pairing titles with wallet of the user. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Melika are implemented through field of blockchain transaction and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the titles of Melika to accurately store information associated with the product. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Haldenby, in view of McGregor, in further view of Melika, in further view of Dalton discloses transferring products. However, the above combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton does not disclose:
wherein the digital wallet is a trust wallet, …
Nonetheless, Rush discloses:
wherein the digital wallet is a trust wallet, … [see at least (0060) Web3 wallets are digital wallets … Various Web3 wallets include for example, MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, Argent, Trust Wallet and Rainbow.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton to include the features of Rush. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely transfer product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the wallet of Rush. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses transferring product. Rush teaches wallet for storing digital asset. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Rush are implemented through field of blockchain and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the asset (i.e., product) stored in wallet as taught by Rush to securely transfer asset. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Rush 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 Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton/Rush.
Regarding Claim 8. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton, Rush discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Haldenby further discloses:
… of the blockchain instance bound to the product's serial number. [see at least (0150) the ownership identifier is any suitable unique identifying factor. In embodiments, the product identifier can be a serial number for the product or other unique identifying factor. This ownership ID may be generated by the retailer's (702) tracking system, by the central authority (708) or by any other suitable source.
Rush further discloses:
wherein the trust wallet is a Web3 wallet, … wherein Web3 functionality enables decentralized validation … [see at least (0060) Web3 wallets are useful for accessing the Web3 space, decentralized finance (DeFi), and cryptocurrency space … They can store digital assets such as dots or fungible tokens like bitcoin. The Web3 wallet also opens the door to the cryptocurrency realm, allowing users to interact with digital applications on various blockchains. In turn, wallets help users access an extensive ecosystem of dApps (decentralized applications). Various Web3 wallets include for example, MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, Argent, Trust Wallet and Rainbow]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton, Rush to include the additional features of Rush. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely transfer product using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the wallet of Rush. Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton, Rush discloses transferring product. Rush further teaches storing digital asset. Because both Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton as well as Rush are implemented through field of blockchain and both references addresses using the product of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton with the asset (i.e., product) stored in wallet as taught by Rush to securely transfer asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “The Examiner characterizes the claims as being directed to "authenticating a product" and thus to certain methods of organizing human activity or to mental processes. This characterization is overly general and does not reflect the actual language of the claims as now amended. Independent claims 1, 15, and 19 expressly recite specialized hardware components a hardware blockchain generator and a hardware title transferor-performing cryptographic operations to generate tamper-resistant blockchain instances and cryptographic title tokens that are securely transferred between digital wallets. These operations are neither mental nor purely business in nature; they are technical, computer-implemented cryptographic processes. These hardware components are specialized hardware-implemented modules described in the disclosure, including computer systems with controllers executing digital authentication applications (see Fig. 4B; computer system 400 with storage, controller 410, authentication application 490).”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant as the amended claim language still recites an abstract idea of authenticating product. As the independent claims 1, 15, 19 recites receiving serial number of the product, paring the product with a title, and transferring the product. These overall combination recites sales activities or behaviors, business relationship (i.e., transferring from the seller to the buyer). And such limitation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Furthermore, the applicant amends claims 1, 15, 19 to recite “operating”, however, the functionality of the claim still recites generating. Additionally, the claims 1, 15, 19, also recites “cryptographically generate,” “tamper-resistant blockchain,” and “thereby improving data-integrity and tamper-resistance in authentication records,” generally linking the use of the judicial exception to blockchain environment or field of use. See the updated rejection. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Even if the Examiner were to identify some abstract idea in the claims (which Applicant does not concede), the amended claims integrate any such idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of computer-based authentication systems and the security of product authentication records. The specification describes a technical problem: existing product authentication techniques (e.g., packaging, labels, and simple serial numbers) are susceptible to forgery and do not provide robust, tamper-resistant traceability across product life cycles. The invention addresses this technical problem by generating, for each physical product, a blockchain instance that is cryptographically bound to the product's serial number and stored in a user's digital wallet. The hardware blockchain generator and hardware title transferor are not generic labels for a processor. They are specialized modules configured for blockchain and title-related cryptographic operations. Specifically, the amended claims recite, inter alia: (1) generating a tamper-resistant blockchain instance specific to a physical product; (2) cryptographically matching a serial number to a user's digital wallet; (3) storing the blockchain instance in the8 wallet; and (4) cryptographically generating and pairing a title token to the serial number and securely transferring the title token between wallets.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Even if the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any purported abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 15, and 19 recite, in combination, a hardware blockchain generator, a hardware title transferor, tamper- resistant per-product blockchain instances, and cryptographic title tokens that are securely transferred between wallets. These elements, in the ordered combination recited, are not conventional or routine in the context of product authentication. The cited prior art does not disclose a hardware blockchain generator that generates a unique blockchain instance for each physical product, nor a hardware title transferor that cryptographically pairs and transfers title tokens between wallets. The dependent claims further specify technical contexts-such as gaming devices, DVDs, luxury goods, vehicles, and digital assets-and how the blockchain instances and title tokens are bound to device identifiers and product-specific identifiers to preserve authenticity and provenance. These claimed features provide additional, concrete technological benefits. In comparing the presently amended claims to the structure of eligible claims in Enfish, McRO, and Desjardins, following conclusions are reached: 1) Enfish - eligible because the claims improved a computer's data structure. Present Claims - improves storage and authentication of physical product information using blockchain structures generated by hardware modules. 2) McRO - eligible because the steps constrained how the system performed an animation process. Present Claims - the steps constrain how blockchains and title tokens are generated, paired, and transferred. 3) Desjardins - the Office explicitly held that claims improving AI, ML, or computer system operation are patent-eligible if the improvement is reflected in the claim. Present Claims - the improvement-tamper-proof, hardware-anchored, blockchain- based product authentication-is expressly claimed. For at least these reasons, the pending claims, as amended, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, although the dependent claim does recite different forms of product (i.e., gaming device, luxury goods, etc.), but it does not indicate the improvement on technology. Additionally, the amended claim does recite “tamper-resistant” “immutable” “decentralized validation” etc., but it does not recite what is improvement. These characteristics such as “tamper-resistant” “immutable” “decentralized validation” etc., are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to blockchain environment or field of use. See the updated rejection. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant submits: “Here, the specification describes, in detail, system components for generating and managing blockchain-based product authentication. For example, the figures and description identify components that perform blockchain generation, serial-number handling, wallet interaction, and title management using a computer system with a controller executing an authentication application. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the system's blockchain generation component corresponds to the claimed hardware blockchain generator, and that the title management and transfer component corresponds to the claimed hardware title transferor. Moreover, the amended claim language further clarifies that these components are hardware modules configured to perform cryptographic operations-i.e., to generate tamper- resistant blockchain instances and cryptographic title tokens and to control secure transfers between wallets. These operations are plainly within the level of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure. Far from adding new matter, the amendments simply make explicit what is already inherent in and supported by the original disclosure: that the system includes hardware components dedicated to blockchain generation and title transfer functions. Accordingly, the written description requirement of §112(a) is satisfied, and this rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner response: After further consideration, the rejection is withdrawn based on applicant specification [0037]. Thus, the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection for is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Amended independent claims 1, 15, and 19 recite, inter alia. (1) a hardware blockchain generator configured to cryptographically generate a tamper-resistant blockchain instance specific to a physical product; (2) cryptographic matching of a product serial number to a digital wallet of a user and storing the blockchain instance in the wallet; and (3) a hardware title transferor configured to cryptographically generate and pair a digital title token to the serial number and to securely transfer the title token between wallets. Haldenby generally discloses hybrid blockchains and tracking of product ownership but does not disclose a hardware blockchain generator that generates per-product blockchain instances bound to physical products via serial numbers and stored in user wallets as now claimed. McGregor discloses certain aspects of digital wallets and serial number handling but again does not teach a dedicated hardware blockchain generator or the specific, tamper-resistant per-product blockchain instances recited in the claims. Melika discusses electronic titles and backend systems but does not teach a hardware title transferor as claimed, nor the specific cryptographic pairing of a title token to a blockchain instance and subsequent secure transfer between wallets. The Examiner's rationale combines disparate teachings from these references at a high level but does not identify any disclosure that suggests the specific hardware-based architecture recited in the claims. Simply put, there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art to implement product authentication using a hardware blockchain generator that creates per-product blockchain instances and a hardware title transferor that cryptographically generates and transfers title tokens between wallets to improve security and data-integrity. The claimed architecture provides advantages not achieved in the prior art, including enhanced tamper- resistance and non-repudiation of ownership transfers. Further, the dependent claims recite further technical detail and context (e.g., binding device identifiers, DVD codes, luxury-goods identifiers, vehicle ownership, and digital-asset provenance to blockchain instances) that is not taught or suggested by the cited combination. These limitations are not mere field-of-use restrictions but concrete applications of the claimed hardware-anchored blockchain architecture to specific technical domains. For at least these reasons, the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and the § 103 rejections should be withdrawn.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. Furthermore, the newly cited Dalton reference discloses the characteristics of the blockchain. Additionally, the combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton discloses the claim limitations of claims 1-4, 10-16, 19-20, and the combination of Haldenby, McGregor, Melika, Dalton, and Rush discloses the claim limitation of claims 7, 8. See the updated rejection above.
Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180349896 A1 ARORA; Ankur et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ANONYMIZATION OF ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS VIA BLOCKCHAIN - A method for anonymization of a blockchain transaction includes: storing a key pair comprising a private key and public key; receive an anonymization request from a computing device, the request including a destination address and transaction amount; transmitting an intermediate address based on the public key to the computing device; receiving one block in a blockchain, the one block being comprised of a block header and one or more transaction data values including a specific transaction data value comprised of the intermediate address and a transfer amount based on the transaction amount; generating a digital signature using the private key; and transmitting a new transaction data value and the digital signature to a node associated with the blockchain, the new transaction data value being comprised of the destination address and a payment amount related to the transaction amount.
US 20220044316 A1 Gaur; Nitin et al. BLOCKCHAIN IMPLEMENTED TRANSFER OF MULTI-ASSET DIGITAL WALLETS - A processor may analyze each instance of digital assets. The processor may identify, respectively, one or more rules that are applicable to each of the digital assets. The determination of the one or more rules is identified by a compliance mechanism. The processor may validate the one or more rules against each of the digital assets in context of a first user and a second user. The processor may endorse the transfer of the multi-asset digital wallet with a compliance mechanism signature.
US 20220237326 A1 LE BOUTHILLIER; Jean et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CERTIFYING INTEGRITY OF DATA ASSETS - Systems, methods and non-transitory computer readable media are provided for certifying integrity of data assets stored on a client computing system. The data assets are certified by: calculating a state representation of at least one data asset stored on the client computing system using a data verification module deployed to the client computing system; and transmitting the state representation over a network from the client computing system to a remote computing system for storage in an immutable ledger. Systems, methods and non-transitory computer readable media are also provided for verifying integrity of data asserts.
US 20240185191 A1 BERNARDI; ROBERT Web3 Decentralized Blockchain Based NFT Framework... Applications - The invention provides a Web3 Decentralized Blockchain Based NFT Framework for Buyers and Sellers Who Require Privacy, Security and Confidentiality Interworking with Zero Trust Security, Digital Rights Management (DRM), Self-Sovereign Identity Management, Ricardian Contracts, NFT Ownership and Copyright Validation, IPFS Decentralized Storage, WebRTC-QUIC Real Time Communications, Cross-Chain Interoperability and Tokenization of Illiquid Digital Assets such as Patents and University Research Papers using Blockchain NFTs and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications.
US 20230205849 A1 JACKSON; Kevin L. et al. DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL ASSET TRACKING AND AUTHENTICATION VIA NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS ON A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER - Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for tracking assets are disclosed. In one aspect, a method includes the actions of receiving data identifying an asset. The actions further include generating a first hash of the asset. The actions further include generating an NFT that includes metadata that includes the first hash of the asset and the data identifying the asset. The actions further include storing the NFT on a distributed ledger. The actions further include receiving a request to access the asset. The actions further include generating a second hash of the asset. The actions further include accessing the NFT based on the metadata of the NFT including the data identifying the asset. The actions further include comparing the first hash included in the metadata of the NFT to the second hash. The actions further include determining whether the asset has been modified.
US 20220131699 A1 KIMMEL; Joshua M. et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING AND CONTROLLING HIGH RISK SUBSTANCES - In a system and method for globally tracking, monitoring, and authorizing the dispensing of valuable and high-risk products such as drugs, secure delivery devices are needed, coupled to a blockchain serving as a distributed database forming a ledger of the journey of the devices and the dispensing of the product, to allow changes to the ledger to be agreed upon by participants in the blockchain through a consensus mechanism.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights