Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0374503 A1 (hereinafter Goldston) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0169713 A1 (hereinafter Umemura) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0300966 A1 (hereinafter Andon).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to: specify … a plurality of [visual media] to be used for generating [an] image, … and assign authentication information to the … image generated based on the plurality of [visual media] if [a predetermined condition is satisfied]” are taught by Goldston (Goldston, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 55-276, discloses a collaborative multimedia content management system, allowing one or more creators to collaborate on a multimedia project such as an image, song, or video, e.g. paragraphs 55, 63, 116, 117, 154-158, wherein the content item may be stored in a container file comprising a plurality of separate components, including visual media such as artwork and video, used to generate the item, e.g. paragraphs 55, 58, 63, 121, which are collectively stored, accessed, and authenticated using an NFT container, e.g. paragraphs 55, 58-60, 66-68, 74, 132, 154-158, 163-168. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 57, 59, 60, 66, 68, 74, 132, 149, 158, 165-168, 191, 193, teaches that the system allows users to modify/change the content item and/or components thereof, thereby updating the authenticated NFT container to include the changed item/components, where the system only allows the update when the user has appropriate permissions or has an update request approved by other user(s) having the appropriate permissions, i.e. an updated content item and updated components used to generate the updated content item are assigned authentication information only if the predetermined condition(s) of appropriate permissions is satisfied. Finally, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 270-276, indicates that the system is implemented using processor(s) executing instructions stored in memory, and with respect to claim 16, the memory may be non-transitory.)
The limitations “specify editing histories of a plurality of [visual media] to be used for generating [an] image, the editing histories indicating editing details regarding each [visual media]; determine, based on the editing histories, whether each [visual media satisfies a predetermined condition] and assign authentication information to the … image generated based on the plurality of [visual media if each [visual media satisfies the predetermined condition]” are taught by Goldston (Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 150, 169, teaches that each of the separate components used to generate the content item are associated with activity logs indicating previous changes made to the respective components, i.e. the claimed editing histories indicating editing details of a plurality of pieces of material data to be used for generating the image. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request, where, e.g. paragraphs 59, 74, 137, 138, 154-158, the permissions may be set by the original creator(s) of the content item/components, i.e. as claimed, the authentication information is only assigned if the predetermined conditions(s) of user permissions to edit the content item/components is met, wherein the editing of each content item/components is indicated by the editing details in the editing history, e.g. as in figures 18-19, i.e. the predetermined condition(s) of user permissions to edit the content item/components is met when the request to update the content item/components includes an editing history with editing details indicating that the user did not edit any components they did not have permission to edit. In contrast, if a user requested to update an NFT container with a modified content item generated with a modified component, where the user did not have permission to modify the component and the update request was denied by the other user(s) with appropriate permissions, then the NFT container would not be updated with the modified content item/component, i.e. the claimed authentication information would not be assigned to the modified content item because the editing details of the editing history of the modified component would not satisfy the predetermined condition of the user having been granted permission to edit the component, i.e. at least one editing detail in the editing history of a component does not satisfy the predetermined condition indicating editing details for which editing of the piece of material data is permitted. It is additionally noted that this corresponds to the further limitations of depending claims 2-3, i.e. the NFT container is not updated to include the modified content item when the user does not have permission to modify the modified component used to make the modified content item, and the permissions/predetermined condition are set by the creator(s) of the content item and its components.)
The limitations “a plurality of 3D models to be used for generating a virtual viewpoint image … and assign authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the plurality of 3D models if each … of the plurality of 3D models [satisfies the predetermined condition]” are not explicitly taught by Goldston (While Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 55, 63, indicates that any type of multimedia content, and component files used to generate the content, are supported by the system, i.e. the content items may be images or videos, Goldston does not address the content item being a virtual viewpoint image generated from a plurality of components including a plurality of 3D models.) However, this limitation is taught by Umemura (Umemura, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 20-122, describes a system for generating virtual viewpoint images and videos from video data acquired from a plurality of cameras recording one or more events. Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 22-24, describes exemplary arrangement of cameras with respect to an athletic field, where the video data is stored for later use in generating the virtual viewpoint images, e.g. paragraph 27, and the virtual viewpoint images/videos are generated by constructing 3D models of foreground objects and the background from the stored videos, e.g. paragraphs 28, 29, 33, 44, 52, and rendering virtual viewpoint images according to the viewpoint position and arrangement of object models specified by the user, e.g. paragraphs 30-33, 43, 45, 47-49, 74-86. As discussed by Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 47-50, one of the advantages of the disclosed system is generating virtual viewpoint images/videos allowing for visual comparison of two or more players’ performance from one or more recorded events, including selectively adjusting their relative positioning, i.e. placing the two players in adjacent lanes.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system to support Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items because Goldston’s indicates that any type of multimedia content, and component files used to generate the content, are supported by the system. It is noted that this does not necessarily constitute a modification, per se, of Goldston’s system, i.e. in the combined system Goldston’s system would operate as described, where the disclosed creator user(s) could choose to use Goldston’s authenticated NFT container files to control access to/modification of a generated virtual viewpoint image corresponding to Goldston’s content item, where the authenticated NFT container files would additionally include the components used to generate the virtual viewpoint image, i.e. Umemura’s recorded videos from the plurality of cameras at the one or more events, as well as the 3D models of foreground objects and the background.
The limitations “the editing histories indicating editing details regarding each position of the plurality of 3D models; determine, based on the editing histories, whether each position of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to a predetermined permissible position at which each of the plurality of 3D models is permitted to be arranged in a virtual space; and assign authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the plurality of 3D models if each position of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible position” are implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 33, 38-51, 72-87, 99, 100, 110, teaches that the virtual viewpoint image includes rendering foreground player object models at a virtual viewpoint position based on the relative position between the recorded player object model and the recorded background model, where the virtual viewpoint position may be used to render the foreground player object model at the appropriate relative position in a different background model, i.e. in a same relative lane number but a different recorded track environment as in paragraphs 72-87, and/or render the foreground player object model in an adjusted lane. That is, Umemura teaches that the 3D foreground player object models are restricted to positions in the virtual space that are within the lanes of the 3D background model, corresponding to the claimed predetermined permissible position that each of the plurality of 3D models is permitted to be arranged in a virtual space. Further, as discussed above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request, i.e. in addition to requiring the user requesting to update the virtual viewpoint image NFT container have permission to modify the player object positions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit in view of Umemura’s disclosure that the user would be restricted to selecting player object positions relative to the 3D background model that are located within one of the lanes, corresponding to the claimed assigning authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image if each of the 3D model’s positions correspond to predetermined permissible positions. In the interest of compact prosecution, Andon is cited for teaching what one of ordinary skill in the art would have found implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura, i.e. that the creator of an NFT authenticated 3D model component may specify a predetermined set of permissible positions for combining the 3D model component with other components of a 3D scene.) However this limitation is taught by Andon (Andon, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 16-45, describes a digital asset architecture for mixed reality environments, wherein the digital assets include 2D and 3D graphics models, e.g. paragraphs 21-23, and each asset is secured and authenticated using a corresponding NFT, e.g. paragraphs 17-29. Andon, e.g. paragraph 24, indicates that the creator of an asset can specify the location(s) where other asset type(s) can be displayed, using the example of logo assets restricted to predetermined positions on a jersey asset, i.e. as noted above Andon teaches what one of ordinary skill in the art would have found implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura, that the creator of an NFT authenticated 3D model asset may specify a predetermined set of permissible positions for combining the 3D model asset with other assets of a 3D scene.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system, supporting Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items, to use Andon’s NFT 3D model asset location restrictions specified by the asset creator in order to support Umemura’s lane restricted player object positions relative to the 3D background model, i.e. as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit in view of Umemura’s disclosure that the user would be restricted to selecting player object positions relative to the 3D background model that are located within one of the lanes, and Andon teaches that an asset creator may specify the location(s) where other asset type(s) can be displayed. In the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the authentication information is not assigned to the virtual viewpoint image if at least one of [the] positions of the plurality of 3D models does not correspond to the predetermined permissible position” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request. Further, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models. That is, when the request to update includes modified position(s) of the player 3D model(s), which would be indicated by the activity log associated with the modified 3D model(s), e.g. Goldston, paragraphs 150, 169, and the modified position(s) are not within the restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, i.e. at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s), then the NFT container is not updated to include the modified virtual viewpoint video, generated based on the modified 3D player model(s), i.e. the authentication information is not assigned to the modified virtual viewpoint video because at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s).)
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the predetermined permissible position is set by a creator who has created the plurality of 3D models” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 74, 137, 138, 154-158, teaches that the permissions may be set by the original creator(s) of the content item/components. Further, as discussed in the combination with Umemura and Andon in the claim 1 rejection, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories. That is, the predetermined permissible position(s) are set by the creator of the 3D models.)
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 14, the limitations “wherein the authentication information is information designating an access right for viewing the virtual viewpoint image”, “wherein the authentication information is indicated by using a non-fungible token (NFT)”, and “wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions further to output the virtual viewpoint image to another apparatus” are taught by Goldston (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, 73-76, 86, 87, 90, 93, 104-111, teaches that the authentication information is an authenticated NFT container used to control access to the content item, i.e. access rights for viewing and/or modifying the virtual viewpoint image, which may include selling or otherwise granting access rights to reviewing users, using separate reviewing devices, e.g. paragraphs 86, 87 i.e. outputting the virtual viewpoint image to other apparatuses.)
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the plurality of 3D models include at least one of a foreground model and a background model” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura’s 3D models include 3D models of foreground objects and the background from the stored videos, e.g. paragraphs 28, 29, 33, 44, 52, i.e. the foreground 3D player models correspond to the 3D models having the predetermined permissible position(s) as discussed in the claim 1 rejection.)
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the predetermined permissible position corresponds to a position restricted based on a positional relationship between one of the plurality of 3D models and another of the plurality of 3D models” are taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories. That is, as further defined by claim 10, the predetermined permissible permission(s) are restricted based on a positional relationship between the foreground 3D player models and the background 3D model. It is additionally noted that although the claim 1 rejection does not address the background 3D model, per se, having a restricted set of permissible permissions, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 99, 100, 110, indicate that the origin point of the athletic field is used to define the coordinates for the other models and lane components, such that the background 3D model also has a restricted position, i.e. the origin point of the athletic field cannot be changed without causing errors to the calculation of the relative coordinates, indicating that the background 3D model may be one of the 3D models having a predetermined permissible position specified by the creator.)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, “wherein the plurality of 3D models are specified based on a user operation”, “wherein the plurality of 3D models include a 3D model for which an NFT indicating ownership has been issued, and the plurality of 3D models include a 3D model for which the user has ownership” are taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 30-33, 43, 45, 47-49, 74-86, teaches rendering virtual viewpoint images according to the viewpoint position and arrangement of object models specified by the user, i.e. the plurality of 3D models are specified based on a user operation. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, 74, teaches that the each of the components used to generate the content item may be separately associated with a respective NFT for controlling access/transaction rights for the component, i.e. each of the 3D models may have an NFT issued for indicating ownership. Finally, in at least some instances the same user, e.g. a creator user, may specify the viewpoint position and object model arrangement as in Umemura, and also have the NFT authenticated ownership rights to each of the component models used to generate the virtual viewpoint image as taught by Goldston, corresponding to the claim requirement that the user has ownership of the 3D models indicated by respective NFT(s).)
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the virtual viewpoint image is generated based on a plurality of captured images obtained by being captured by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 22-24, describes exemplary arrangement of cameras with respect to an athletic field, i.e. the virtual viewpoint image is generated based on the plurality of captured images from the plurality of cameras.)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0374503 A1 (hereinafter Goldston) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0169713 A1 (hereinafter Umemura) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0300966 A1 (hereinafter Andon) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0053347 A1 (hereinafter Marchak) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0358450 A1 (hereinafter Stephens).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “wherein the editing histories further indicate editing details regarding a color of at least one of the plurality of models; and wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions further to determine, based on the editing details regarding the color indicated by the editing histories, whether an editing operation to change the color of the at least one of the plurality of 3D models has been performed, and assign the authentication information in a case where the editing operation to change the color has not been performed” are partially taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories. Further, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request, i.e. in addition to the predetermined conditions for assigning authentication including the position(s) of the 3D model(s) are within a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model, the predetermined conditions also include requiring that the user requesting to update the virtual viewpoint image NFT container have permission to modify the player object positions. While Umemura teaches that the user may adjust the relative positioning of the player models for comparing the performance of one or more players from one or more recorded events, Umemura does not explicitly address allowing a user to selectively modify the color of the foreground 3D object models, per se, i.e. Umemura’s user editing operations are limited to modifying the virtual viewpoint camera, the relative placement of player model(s), and the relative timing of player model playback. Further, while Andon, e.g. paragraph 24, teaches that the creator of a 3D asset may specify restrictions to control the “look and feel” of the final article, Andon does not explicitly teach that the creator can specify permissions regarding changing the color of the assets.) However, these limitations are taught by Marchak in view of Stephens (Marchak, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 34-79, describes a system for generating virtual viewpoint images/videos using videos recorded from a plurality of viewpoints with respect to an athletic event on a field, i.e. analogous to Umemura’s system, Marchak’s system allows a user to adjust parameters for generating virtual viewpoint images from events, e.g. paragraphs 35, 72-74, 77-79. Further, Marchak, e.g. paragraph 77, figure 9, teaches that the user can modify a the colors of a selected object in order to highlight the object relative to other object(s) in the virtual viewpoint image, i.e. Marchak teaches that in addition to allowing a user to modify the virtual viewpoint camera and foreground player object model positions, the color of the foreground player object models can be modified, corresponding to a color predetermined condition analogous to Umemura’s disclosed types of editing operations. Stephens, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 33-155, discloses a system for using NFTs to track changes to properties of digital assets including 3D model assets, e.g. paragraph 67. Stephens teaches that the NFTs associated with each asset including tracking the history of each asset, and edits made to asset parameters, e.g. paragraphs 81, 82, figures 6A, 6B, in particular the user “Snipe123” modified the colors of the sniper rifle asset by adding a skull-and-crossbones with stripes, i.e. editing details regarding the color of the 3D model indicated by the editing history. Further, Stephens, e.g. paragraphs 74-76, indicates that when an NFT token is minted, the creator defines some metadata to be immutable and some metadata to be mutable, i.e. the creator can define the color parameters/metadata of the asset to be immutable or mutable, thereby indicating a color modification such as the ”Snipe123” example is permitted (mutable) or not permitted (immutable), i.e. when the color parameters/metadata are defined for one or more assets as immutable, then a predetermined condition for assigning the authentication information to modified versions of the assets, as claimed, is determining that the editing history for each modified asset indicates that the color parameters/metadata for that asset have not been modified.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system, supporting Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items, using Andon’s NFT 3D model asset location restrictions specified by the asset creator in order to support Umemura’s lane restricted player object positions relative to the 3D background model, to include Marchak’s player object model color change editing operation in addition to Umemura’s disclosed types of editing operations in order to allow the user to highlight one or more of the player object models using selected colors, and to include Stephens’ mutability permissions for digital asset metadata defined by the NFT token creator in order to allow the creator to control the “look and feel” of the digital assets as taught by Andon, i.e. analogous to Andon’s example of the creator restricting the location for placing a digital asset, Stephens’ mutability permissions used with asset color parameters/metadata allow a creator to control how the look of the digital asset is modified by other users. In the modified system including Marchak’s player object model color change editing operation, an update request could be a request to update a virtual viewpoint NFT container with a modified virtual viewpoint image generated using a player model with modified color parameters/metadata, i.e. as claimed, the editing histories could include editing details regarding a color of at least one of the plurality of the 3D models, analogous to Stephens’ “Snipe123” example discussed above. Further, in the modified system, in addition to the predetermined conditions for assigning authentication to the modified virtual viewpoint image including condition that the position(s) of the 3D model(s) are within a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model as in the claim 1 rejection, the predetermined conditions for assigning authentication would include, for each 3D player model having the color parameters/metadata defined as immutable, determining that the editing history for that 3D player model does not include changes to the color parameters/metadata, corresponding to the claimed assigning authentication information in a case where the editing operation to change the color has not been performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that although not identical, the amended independent claims include subject matter similar to the subject matter formerly recited in claim 9, now cancelled. Applicant’s remarks, e.g. page 8, do not address this mapping specifically or suggest any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the lane positioning requirement for the foreground 3D player models taught by Umemura, in combination with Goldston’s NFT authentication requiring that the editing histories include only permissible changes based on predetermined permission conditions, to teach the amended limitations of the independent claims requiring the 3D models be positioned at one of the predetermined permissible positions in order for the authentication information to be assigned. While Andon’s disclosure is relied on in the above combination in the interest of compact prosecution, with Andon explicitly teaching that the creator of an NFT authenticated 3D model asset may specify permissible relative locations for placing other NFT authenticated graphical assets, Applicant’s remarks asserting that the teachings of Goldston and Umemura together do not render the independent claim scope obvious are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611