DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on August 26, 2025.
Claims 77-82 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-76 have been cancelled.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2025, page 5, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Careful review of the cited portions of the Specification was made, Paragraphs 0198-0202 and Figure 16; however, no structural support was found for the elements at issue. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendment of the claims, adding the term module to each element, does not overcome the rejection because a module a generic placeholder. Place holders such as the term module, fail to capture appropriate structure or sufficient structure. As a result, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, pages 5-6, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to “a specific, tangible computing system that solves a technical problem unique to the digital realm: the secure, verifiable, and controlled transfer of ownership of digital assets; id., 5.” Furthermore, Applicant argues “claim 77 recites a specific machine comprising a communication layer with distinct parser, validator, and authenticator modules, which functions as a trusted gatekeeper for a business logic engine layer. The business logic engine layer is not generic but includes a registrar that is specifically configured to interact with the communication layer. The claimed system is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem that did not exist before the digital age-the inability to securely establish provenance for easily duplicated digital goods. The amended claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the purported abstract idea. The specific interaction-wherein the registrar is configured to act on a resale message only after it has been processed and received from the authenticator module-is a non-conventional arrangement that provides a technical improvement to computer functionality. It creates a secure and reliable system for managing digital property rights.” Id., 6.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are determined to amount to an abstract idea of updating and storing asset ownership information without significantly more.
The abstract idea falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The mere validation of a message, settlement of a transaction for an asset and recording new owner information of the asset highlights, without question, the above abstract idea grouping and sub-groupings.
Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the additional elements, including the argued a communication layer with distinct parser, validator, and authenticator modules fail to amount to a practical application. These elements are recited at a high level of generality. They are not recited in the claim in a manner that captures technical improvements to computer technology or realm as argued. Instead, these additional elements merely carry out generic computer functions such as communicating data, authenticating data, generating data, analyzing the data, outputting a result and storing data.
The Examiner further notes, see MPEP 2106.04(I), that claimed novelty does not serve as a basis of patent eligibility determination under 101. The cited MPEP portion states “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original).”
Emphasis added.
Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step-2B, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-7, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to teach the claim limitations and that an obvious combination of elements is not proper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Parsing messages and authenticating said messages is clearly taught by the relied upon art. Furthermore, settlement of a transaction for content or media and registering / storing associated user ownership of the content/media is also taught by the relied upon art. Merely combining the two elements, which are both usable in media content and registration, is an obvious and reasonable combination to one or ordinary skill in the art. As a result, the references relied upon teach the claim limitations as a whole.
See rejection below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, now Patent 8732086 and Patent 8644969, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior Applications, or Patents cited above fail to disclose the use of lexical analysis using a message parser along with other elements in the instant claims. As a result, the earliest priority date that will be applied to the instant claims will be February 23, 2011. The filed provisional Application, 61/446015, provides support for at least the use of lexical analysis and message parser as recited in the instant claims.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a message parser configured to perform…,” “a message validator module configured to determine…,” “a message authenticator module configured to authenticate…,” and at least “a business logic engine layer, comprising a registrar that is configured to: purchase… generate… receive...” and “a disbursement manager configured to: determine…, and transmit…” in claims 77-82.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 77-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 77 recites “a message parser,” “a message validator,” “a message authenticator,” and at least “a business logic engine layer, comprising a registrar.” The Specification fails to disclose the corelating structure for these elements.
Also, it is not known how the claimed “a message parser,” “a message validator,” “a message authenticator,” and at least “a business logic engine layer, comprising a registrar” can perform the claimed limitations when they lack hardware to execute the necessary instructions to cause the functions claimed to be performed. Per claim 78, the claim recites “a disbursement manager.” The claim is rejected under the same rational as above for lack of structure for the claimed limitation at issue.
As a result, the claim and all dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claim.
Claim 77 recites “a message parser performing lexical analysis on incoming messages by dividing the messages into component parts.” The Specification fails to provide support for the dividing the messages into parts and the Specification fails to disclose how such division of the messages is done.
The dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 77-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a message parser configured to perform…,” “a message validator module configured to determine…,” “a message authenticator module configured to authenticate…,” and at least “a business logic engine layer, comprising a registrar that is configured to: purchase… generate… receive...” and “a disbursement manager configured to: determine…, and transmit…” in claims 77-82 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependence on the rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 77-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 77-82 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 77-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of updating and storing asset ownership information without significantly more.
The abstract idea falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The mere validation of a message, settlement of a transaction for an asset and recording new owner information of the asset highlights, without question, the above abstract idea grouping and sub-groupings. Furthermore, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are determined to fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. The claims capture concepts performed in the human mind including evaluation, judgment and opinion and performing such actions using pen and paper.
The storing of an owner of an asset and assigning that owner the ability to resell the asset, determining that the owner sold the asset and updating ownership of the asset all amount to elements that can be carried out by pen and paper and are clearly descriptive of the above identified types of abstract ideas. Lexical analysis can literally be carried out using pen and paper, wherein a message is simply parsed to determine if it is authentic based on the rules of the message set. The limitations as a whole also summarize fundamental economic principles because the selling and buying of a product and registration of said product is simply an emphasized example of business relations. registering/storing of ownership of an asset clearly captures business relations between the seller, buyer, and the product being purchased and assigned to the new buyer.
Claim 77, in pertinent part, recites:
A data processing system for managing ownership of… assets, the system comprising:
a communication layer, comprising client… managing communication with client…, wherein said client… comprise:
a message parser… configured to perform lexical analysis on incoming messages by dividing the messages into component parts;
a message validator… configured to determine whether the message is constructed as per the protocol defined for the client web services; and
a message authenticator… configured to authenticate the body of the message and the sender of the message;
a non-transitory computer storage device storing a data store or records of title for… assets; and
a… layer, comprising a registrar that is configured to: (i) purchase of a digital asset on a first device by a first consumer or by a first entity that buys and sells digital assets, (ii) generate a dated record of title to the first consumer or to the first entity, respectively, for the digital asset, and stores the dates record of title on said non-transitory computer storage device(iii) receive a resale permission message for the digital asset from the first consumer or from the first entity, wherein the resale permission message is received from the message authenticator… after the message is parsed, validated, and authenticated by said client web services, (iv) further register purchase of the… asset on a second device by either a second consumer, or by a second entity that buys and sells digital assets, and (v) further generate an updated record of title for the… asset to the second consumer, or to the second entity, respectively, and stores the updated record of title...
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “digital assets,” “client web services managing communication with client computers,” “a message parser module,” “a message validator module,” “a message authenticator module,” “non-transitory computer storage device,” and “a business logic engine layer.” The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as communicating data, analyzing data, sending and receiving data, authenticating data, transaction settlement, updating data and storing the updated data. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 77-82 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the World Intellectual Property Organization WO 02/19145 to Zaplin (Zaplin), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0132060 to Mo et al. (Mo).
Per claims 77, Zaplin teaches all of the following limitations:
A data processing system for managing ownership of digital assets, the system comprising [Abstract and Figure 1]:
a communication layer, comprising client web services managing communication with client computers, wherein said client web services comprise [Abstract, Pages 6-7 and Figure 1]:
a non-transitory computer storage device storing a data store of records of title for digital assets [Abstract, Page 13, Claim 1 and Figure 1]; and
a business logic engine layer, comprising a registrar that is configured to (i) purchase of a digital asset on a first device by a first consumer or by a first entity that buys and sells digital assets (“According to one embodiment of the invention, a method of insuring rightful ownership of a personal asset, such as artwork, includes identifying the asset, adding ownership history information to a data record for the identified asset, issuing an insurance policy insuring rightful ownership of the asset and updating the data record with information about the insurance policy. A certificate of rightful ownership may be printed for the asset based on the data record. In addition, the asset may be identified based on the printed certificate. Identifying the asset may be performed by querying provenance databases, by the creator of the asset, by analyzing authentication information in one or both of the asset, the certificate and the database. The personal asset may be any personal property illustratively including, for example, a work of art, an antique, a jewel, an automobile. Dates of transactions are recorded as part of the registry) [Pages 2-3, and 7 and Figures 1-2], (ii) generate a dated record of title to the first consumer or to the first entity, respectively, for the digital asset, and store the dated record of title on said non-transitory computer storage device, (Dates of transactions are recorded as part of the registry) [Page 7], (iii) receive a resale permission message for the digital asset from the first consumer or from the first entity, wherein the resale permission message is received from the message authenticator module of the communication layer after the message is parsed, validated, and authenticated by said client web services, (iv) further registers purchase of the digital asset on a second device by either a second consumer, or by a second entity that buys and sells digital assets, and (v) further generates an updated record of title for the digital asset to the second consumer, or to the second entity, respectively, and store the updated record of title in the data store of records of title on said non-transitory computer storage device (asset is available for purchase at auction/site. “In the case of on-line sales, the certificate may be printed at the platform 105 and sent by mail to the customer. Upon issuance of the certificate, the consignor is automatically notified of the details of the transaction and may therefore seek payment from the dealer. The data file is also updated with the buyer information. The buyer may choose to have the buyer's name listed in the data file as the current owner. Alternatively, the buyer may choose to have the buyer's name and address changed to a street name and address to preserve anonymity. Alternatively, the buyer may choose to have the data file deleted from the database and retain the certificate as the only record of the information compiled for the work of art.” “The certificate includes information identifying the asset. The method further includes retrieving a data record for the asset based on information in the certificate and updating the data record upon a sale of the asset to a new owner based on information provided by the new owner.”) [Pages 2-5].
Zaplin does not explicitly disclose:
Although Zaplin teaches using authentication measures to authenticate a piece of content/art and using various communication means to communicate data between entities, as noted in at least the Abstract and Page 4 and Figure 1, Zaplin does not explicitly disclose a message parser module configured to perform lexical analysis on incoming messages by dividing the messages into component parts; a message validator determining whether the message is constructed as per the protocol defined for the client web services; and a message authenticator authenticating the body of the message and the sender of the message;
Mo explicitly teaches a message parser module configured to perform lexical analysis on incoming messages; a message validator module configured to determine whether the message is constructed as per the protocol defined for the client web services; and a message authenticator module configured to authenticate the body of the message and the sender of the message (the information sent and received is analyzed using encryption and decryption to ensure that the message(s) are authentic. Lexical analysis can be done using pen and paper however as the Applicant’s Specification discloses and in efforts of advancing prosecution, the use of PIK or encryption methods to authenticate messages is more secure and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such secure authentication methods and associate them with lexical methods) [Abstract, and Paragraphs 0009, 0063-0068, 0072-0073, 0079, and 0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zaplin, which teaches using communication methods and data to authenticate content, to include the teachings of Mo to specifically use lexical analysis on messages, in motivation of validating the data within message between parties in a more secure manner.
Per claim 78, Zaplin teaches wherein said communication layer further comprises partner web services managing communication with entities that receive disbursements from the system, and wherein said business logic engine layer further comprises a disbursement manager configured to: (i) determine an allocation of cash or purchasing credit, of a purchase price paid by the second consumer or the second entity, for the digital asset, between one or more of the first consumer or the first entity, a publisher of the digital asset, and the registrar, and (ii) transmit the allocation to one or more of the first consumer or the first entity via said partner web services (online sales allow for determination of seller and buy and price negotiated for the item and conducts a transfer of funds and service/content to the buyer. Also using brick and mortar retailers or publishers such as auction houses also serves as an intermediary between sellers) [Pages 3-5].
Per claim 79, Zaplin teaches where said business logic engine layer is configured to automatically generate the resale permission when a designated time period has expired from the date of the record of title to the first consumer or the first entity, and/or a designated date has arrived (auction sales require a time threshold to be met. Once the time of auction is reached, the item up for sale is sold. The auction systems 140 may conduct auctions of goods and services including works of art over a wide area network, such as the Internet.) [Pages 3-4].
Per claim 80, Zaplin teaches wherein the configuring of said registrar to perform steps (i)-(v) further comprises configuring the registrar to repeatedly perform (iii), (iv) and (v) for a succession of consumers or entities that buy and sell digital assets [Pages 2-5].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to duplicate the above steps by one of ordinary skill of art; In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Per claim 81, Zaplin does not explicitly disclose wherein said business logic engine layer further comprises multiple back-end nodes, each of which services devices that communicate with the system, wherein each instance of a back-end node comprises: a web services layer; a business logic layer; and a node synchronization manager.
Mo teaches wherein said computing engine layer further comprises multiple back-end nodes, each of which services devices that communicate with the system, wherein each instance of a back-end node comprises: a web services layer; a business logic layer; and a node synchronization manager [Paragraphs 0153, and Figures 6-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zeplin, which teaches using various computer entities and communications techniques to settle a sale of an asset, to include the teachings of Mo to specifically teach utilizing multiple computers or nodes comprise means to settle a transfer of an asset to a new buyer in motivation of enhancing the communication effectiveness and security as with more nodes performing the necessary validations, the higher the likeliness of a proper authentication.
Per claim 82, Zaplin teaches a database layer interacting with said business logic engine layer [Page 7 and Figure 2].
Related references
Korean Application 10-1575927 B1 to Park teaches the selling and registering of content to a user and determining resale of the content to another user.
US PGPUB 2006/0218651 to Ginter teaches the management of transfer of content from individuals, creators and sellers, using authentication means to transfer the content (VDEs), and enforcing various DRM rules on the content.
Other references disclosing the use of lexical analysis, token keys, and encryption techniques to validate messages are also well settled in the references cited. Such technology is well known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of lexical methods are so basic that a message can be authenticated using simply pen and paper. More difficult methods require computers to solve the message authentication requirements; thus decreasing the time it takes to validate a message.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699