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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the claims filed on 09/16/2024.
Claims 1-25 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 26-212 have been cancelled.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s priority claim of U.S. Provisional Patent Application serial number 63/498,269, filed on April 25, 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Utility Patent Application serial number 18/058,714, filed November 23, 2022, which claims of U.S. Provisional Patent Application serial number 63/361,103, filed on November 23, 2021.
Drawings
4. Fig. 13, box 208, Fig. 14, box 220, Fig.15, box 230, Fig.16, box 240, Fig.17, box 256, Fig.18, box 266, Fig.19, box 276, Fig.20, box 286, Fig. 21, box 296 are objected to because line 3 of all these boxes have typo “they system” which should be “the system.”
Fig.13, box 208 has typo “by the use” which should be “by the user.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites: “…a computing device configured to divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions and to encrypt each of the portions in the plurality using an asset key such that they may be stored on a decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system; wherein the computing device is configured to create a manifest document based upon the division of the digital asset and storage of the portions thereof on the decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system, such that given the access key, the manifest document, and a promotional code provided by the user, the digital asset may be securely reassembled by the user operating a client computing system.” Claim 23 recites: “…wherein the promotional code is provided by the user in an encrypted form which may be decrypted only by a PIN number known by the user.” The term “may be” make the claims ambiguous because the claimed limitations may happen but may not require. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitations do not have patentable weight. For purpose of compact prosecution, prior arts are applied for these limitations, but the claims should be amended to positively recite these limitations.
Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 12, it recites: “the asset key comprises a string of bits configured to be specific to a unique encryption code” which lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 recites “access key.” It is unclear if access key recited in claim 1 and asset key recited in claim 12 are related. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes asset key and access key are the same key.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack et al. (US 20190068615 A1), hereinafter “Pack” in view of Rush et al. (US 20240005354 A1), hereinafter “Rush”.
Regarding claim 1, Pack discloses a system for providing secure access to a digital asset subject to a promotional redemption by a user, comprising:
a computing device (Fig. 1 with associated text, Client Device 102) configured to divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions (Fig.3A with associated text, step 304: breaking asset into chunks) and to encrypt each of the portions in the plurality using an asset key such that they may be stored on a decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system (Fig.3A with associated text, steps 308 and 312: encrypting asset chunks and adding to blockchain); wherein the computing device is configured to create a manifest document based upon the division of the digital asset and storage of the portions thereof on the decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system, such that given the access key, the manifest document, and [a promotional code provided by the user], the digital asset may be securely reassembled by the user operating a client computing system (Fig.3B with associated text: decrypting chunks and recreating asset; paragraphs [0021] and [0064]: file description/metadata-manifest document).
Pack does not explicitly disclose a promotional code provided by the user is used in reassembling the digital asset. However, utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount is known in the art and Rush’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0068], [0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount to have an obvious and predictable result of reassembling the digital asset with the access key, the manifest document, and a promotional code provided by the user and the motivation to do so would be to take benefit of financial discount from the promotional code for the digital asset.
Regarding claim 2, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions based upon a predetermined portion size (Pack, paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to automatically divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions (Pack, paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the asset is a textual digital asset (Pack, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the digital asset is an audio digital asset (Pack, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the digital asset is an audio-video digital asset (Pack, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the asset key comprises a string of bits configured to be specific to a unique encryption code (Pack, paragraph [0020]: different bit size requires different encryption code).
Regarding claim 14, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the asset key is created using a pre-existing algorithm (Pack, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system comprises a plurality of file sharing subsystems that are not co-located (Pack, Fig. 1 with associated text: each client device, computing system or node device is a subsystem; paragraphs [0023]-[0026] and [0077]-[0078]: decentralized file sharing).
Regarding claim 16, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system comprises a plurality of file sharing subsystems configured to be immutable (Pack, Fig. 1 with associated text: each client device, computing system or node device is a subsystem; paragraphs [0023]-[0026] and [0077]-[0078]: decentralized file sharing utilizing blockchain technologies- immutable).
Regarding claim 17, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system comprises a blockchain-based persistent file sharing system (Pack, Fig. 1 with associated text: each client device, computing system or node device is a subsystem; paragraphs [0022]-[0026] and [0077]-[0078]: decentralized file sharing utilizing blockchain technologies.
Regarding claim 18, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the manifest document is configured to contain meta data pertaining to the content of the encrypted portions (Pack, paragraphs [0021] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 19, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the manifest document is encrypted (Pack, paragraphs [0063] and [0065]: encrypted metadata-manifest document).
Regarding claim 20, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the promotional code is provided by the user through use of a pre-existing crypto wallet (Rush, paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 21, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the promotional code is provided by the user through creation of a new crypto wallet in a non-custodial manner (Rush, paragraphs [0061], [0069], [0076]-[0077] and [0092]).
9. Claims 5-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack et al. (US 20190068615 A1), hereinafter “Pack” in view of Rush et al. (US 20240005354 A1), hereinafter “Rush”, and in view of Marion (US 20200380090 A1), hereinafter “Marion”.
Regarding claim 5, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 4. Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device configured to divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions based upon chapters in the textual digital asset created by an author of the textual digital asset. However, encrypting chapters of an eBook is known in the art and Marion’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack and Rush’s teachings of dividing and encrypting chunks of data file with Marion’s teaching of encrypting chapters of an eBook to have an obvious and predictable result of the computing device configured to divide the digital asset into a plurality of portions based upon chapters in the textual digital asset created by an author of the textual digital asset.
Regarding claim 6, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1. Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose but Marion discloses the digital asset is an artistic visual digital asset (paragraph [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount with Marion’s teaching that the digital asset is an artistic visual digital asset to have a predictable result that the digital asset is an artistic visual digital asset.
Regarding claim 7, Pack, Rush and Marion disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the artistic visual digital asset is selected from the group consisting of: a photograph; an image of a painting; an image of a drawing; and a synthetic image (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 8. Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose but Marion discloses wherein the audio digital asset is selected from the group consisting of: a portion of a music recording; a portion of a voice recording; a portion of a synthetic audio recording; a portion of a sound track designed to accompany video; and a portion of a live audio recording (paragraph [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount with Marion’s teaching to have predictable results that the audio digital asset is selected from the group consisting of: a portion of a music recording; a portion of a voice recording; a portion of a synthetic audio recording; a portion of a sound track designed to accompany video; and a portion of a live audio recording.
Regarding claim 11, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 8. Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose but Marion discloses the audio-video asset is selected from the group consisting of: a portion of a movie recording; a portion of a television recording; and a portion of a synthetic audio-visual presentation (paragraph [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount with Marion’s teaching to have predictable results that the audio-video asset is selected from the group consisting of: a portion of a movie recording; a portion of a television recording; and a portion of a synthetic audio-visual presentation.
10. Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack et al. (US 20190068615 A1), hereinafter “Pack” in view of Rush et al. (US 20240005354 A1), hereinafter “Rush”, and in view of Wang (US 20100318807 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 1. Pack further discloses encrypting file segment with encryption key of different bits (paragraph [0020]). Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose wherein the asset key comprises a string of characters configured to be specific to a unique encryption code. However, a key with a string of characters configured to be specific to a unique encryption code is known in the art and Wang’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code provided by a user for a discount with Wang’s teaching of a key with a string of characters configured to be specific to a unique encryption code to have an obvious and predictable result of the asset key comprises a string of characters configured to be specific to a unique encryption code.
11. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack et al. (US 20190068615 A1), hereinafter “Pack” in view of Rush et al. (US 20240005354 A1), hereinafter “Rush”, and in view Fosse et al. (US 20240338699 A1), hereinafter “Fosse”.
Regarding claim 22, Pack and Rush disclose the system of claim 21. Pack and Rush do not explicitly disclose wherein the promotional code is provided by the user without providing direct stored access to a raw unencrypted seed phrase associated with the promotional code. However, utilizing encrypted seed phrase in protecting data stored in a digital wallet is known in the art and Fosse’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0005], 0041] and [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pack’s teaching of providing secure access to a digital asset with Rush’s teaching of utilizing a promotional code associated with a digital wallet with Fosse’s teaching utilizing encrypted seed phrase in protecting data stored in a digital wallet to have an obvious and predictable result of the promotional code is provided by the user without providing direct stored access to a raw unencrypted seed phrase associated with the promotional code and the motivation to do so would be to add additional security for data stored in the digital wallet.
Regarding claim 23, Pack, Rush and Fosse disclose the system of claim 22, wherein the promotional code is provided by the user in an encrypted form which may be decrypted only by a PIN number known by the user (Fosse, paragraphs [0042], [0045], [0072], and [0074]. Fosse discloses PIN word. It is obvious that it’s a designer’s choice to use PIN word or PIN number).
Regarding claim 24, Pack, Rush and Fosse disclose the system of claim 23, wherein the PIN number is configured to decrypt a seed phrase associated with the promotional code to enable the new crypto wallet to be utilized by the user (Fosse, paragraphs [0042], [0045], [0072], and [0074]).
Regarding claim 25, Pack, Rush and Fosse disclose the system of claim 24, wherein the PIN number is configured to be transiently presented to decrypt the seed phrase without storage of the PIN number into a memory other than a temporary main computing memory (Fosse does not explicitly disclose storing the PIN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not store the PIN to prevent it from being vulnerable to attacker).
Prior Art of Record
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495