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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 06/02/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and drawing have overcome the objections to drawings and objection to the specification previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 01/01/2026 and they are accordingly withdrawn. Examiner apologizes for the lack of clarity with respect to the IDS, the previous objection was with regard to the piece of NPL, and it was marked as considered due to the Examiner being able to locate the document outside of the application. Applicant’s updated IDS and inclusion of the non-patent literature has overcome the previously set forth objections to the IDS and said objections are accordingly withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2nd 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1, 3, 10 and 12:
Applicant argues on pages 21-23 that independent claims 1 and 10 are not anticipated by Yeung. Applicant argues, on page 22 that Yeung “fails to disclose (i) the first one or more computing devices retrieving metadata about a token from a database separate from the centralized or distributed ledger using a token identifier in a request received from the second one or more computing devices; and (ii) recording a transfer of ownership on the centralized or distributed ledger in a record comprising account identifiers of the first user account and the second user account.”
First, applicant argues “Yeung fails to disclose that metadata about a token is retrieved from a database separate from the centralize or distributed ledger using a token identifier in a request received from the second one or more computing devices” and that “Yeung’s transaction server never retrieves metadata from the digital object data store on the mobile device. Rather, Yeung’s digital object data store merely ‘serves as a repository in which digital counterparts to physical objects 120 owned by the owner of mobile device 110 are stored’ (para. 31) and is used by the mobile device to formulate the request for ownership transfer”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Yeung’s description of the digital object data store serving as a repository of digital counterparts owned by the user does not preclude the retrieval of metadata. Additionally, Yeung specifically states when a request to transfer ownership is generated “the request may include a node that includes information extracted from physical object 120 and/or digital object data store 116” (paragraph [0023]). Yeung goes on to describe this information (which may be extracted from the digital object data) store as including “at least a unique identifier read from a token on physical object 120, an identification of the transferring party from whom ownership of physical object 120 is to be transferred and an identification of the receiving party to whom ownership of physical object 120 is to be transferred. The node may additionally include other information that may be used in transferring ownership of physical object 120. For example, the node may include a timestamp indicating when the request was initiated, attributes of physical object 120 read from physical object token 122, attributes of a digital counterpart of physical object 120 stored in digital object data store 116, and the like.” (paragraph [0023]).
Applicant additionally argues that Yeung is explicit on the point that “the nodes (210A-210E) and digital counterpart attributes are records in the distributed ledger and therefore are not in a database separate from the centralized or distributed ledger”, citing paragraph 43. However, the existence of these records in the distributed ledger does not mean they are not present in the digital object data store. In fact, the above citation of Yeung (paragraph [0023]) explicitly describes that they are present in the digital object data store.
Applicant further argues on page 23 that “Yeung fails to disclose recording a transfer of ownership on the centralized or distributed ledger in a record comprising account identifiers of the first user account and the second user account”. Applicant further states “To identify the recipient owner, Yeung requires its system to traverse the entire ledger” which “is unlike the claimed invention in which each record includes both account identifiers and only one record needs to be read”. Examiner would like to note that the claim does not provide a limitation that only one record need to be read. The claim states “record comprising the token identifier and account identifiers of the first user account and the second user account”. The teachings of Yeung teach this limitation. A pointer to a another ledger entry which contains an account identifier can be considered a second account identifier which is comprised in the record. Additionally, if an account identifier included in a record whose reference is comprised in the record is not to be considered a second account identifier comprised in the record, the claim would remain rejected in view of Yeung. Yeung does describe a single record, which only needs to be read once, to determine both a first user account and a second user account (). This request generated for a transfer of ownership is not explicitly described as being recorded or saved to the centralized or distributed ledger, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. Because of the above, Examiner maintains that Yeung anticipates the independent claims and if Examiner were to agree with applicant’s arguments, the claim would remain rejected in view of Yeung.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 3 and 12 “”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The claims state that “an ownership field of a token record associated with the token stored in the database”. The claim does not state the database is updated, but that a token record associated with a token stored in the database is. The update of ownership of a token stored in the distributed ledger does not destroy the association between its counterpart stored in the digital object database. Additionally the storage of a digital counterpart in the database is indicative of ownership, so when the database is updated to include an object, that is an update of ownership as the digital object is transferred from one database to another (paragraph [0026]).
35 USC 103 rejections of claims 2, 4-9, 11 and 13-20:
Applicant argues with respect to claims 2 and 11 that the combination does not teach the searching of the database for a key, as the previously cited teachings of Yeung do not teach a database separate from the centralized or distributed ledger. As described above with respect to claims 1 and 10, this is taught by Yeung. Applicant additionally argues that “Andon similarly contemplates only searching the centralized or distributed ledger”, examiner maintains it would have been obvious to combine the two references and search the database instead of the centralized or distributed ledger.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 4 and 13, that Yano is not analogous art. Applicant states, on page 25 “While broadly in the field of ‘computers’, one of skill in the art seeking to combine Yeung and Suh's teachings of cryptographically tracking physical assets to achieve the claimed invention would not consider incorporating Yano's network relay device teachings. The Examiner contends that Yano is analogous because it "is in the same field of data communication", but this is true only in the very broadest sense of the term. MPEP 2141.01(a) notes that "the examiner should consider 'explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention" and "must consider the disclosure of each reference 'in view of the 'the reality of the circumstances."' (internal citations omitted). The present application does not address problems in network relay or link aggregation, and Yano does not address distributed or centralized ledgers or digitally tracking ownership of physical objects.”
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. In order to provide digital tracking of a physical objects ownership, data communication is necessary, for example “network relay” could be a for a data communication used in providing ownership tracking. This can be seen by the common classification subclass of both references under H04L – transmission of digital information. More specifically, as it relates to the reality of the circumstances, the teachings of utilizing a unique identification are useful and common in the digital tracking of ownership. An advantageous means of providing a unique and secure identification based on necessary information is generating a hash value. In the case of Yano, this generation is specified as using “only the VLAN-ID”. Suh does not generate a hash value with metadata, but because it is not specifically excluded, Yano was introduced. Applicant further argues that Suh is non-analogous art but does not provide an explanation for this position. For this reasons the argument with respect to Suh is moot not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeung (US 2021/0182832 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Yeung teaches A system, comprising:
a first one or more computing devices in communication with a centralized or distributed ledger (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0039], [0043]), wherein the first one or more computing devices are configured to:
receive, from a second one or more computing devices associated with a first user account, a request (Figs. 1 & 3 ) to execute a transaction transferring ownership of a token from the first user account to a second user account (Figs. 3-5, paragraphs [0009], [0039], [0041]), the request comprising a token identifier of the token (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0033]),
retrieve, from a database separate from the centralized or distributed ledger, metadata about the token using the token identifier (Fig. 1 #116 – separate database from ledger, Fig. 2 #240A-E, paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0047] – “timestamp included in a node” or “digital counterpart attributes” can be considered metadata), and
record, on the centralized or distributed ledger, the transfer of ownership of the token from the first user account to the second user account in a record (Fig. 2, paragraph [0039]), the record comprising the token identifier and account identifiers of the first user account and the second user account (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0039], [0044], [0045], [0046]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to update an ownership field of a token record associated with the token stored in the database (Fig. 2, paragraph [0039]) to include the account identifier of the second user account (Fig 5 #510, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0043], [0046]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung in view of Andon (US 10,505,726 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1. Yeung fails to teach wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to: search the database for a key corresponding to the token identifier; and retrieve a record corresponding to the key.
However, Andon teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to: search the database for a key corresponding to the token identifier (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 54-67, Col 8 lines 54-60, Col. 10 lines 18-25); and retrieve a record corresponding to the key (Col. 2 lines 54-67, Col. 8 lines 54-67, Col. 9 lines 1-19). Andon describes a system of digital shoe ownership and methods enabling a relationship between a physical shoe and its digital counterpart. This system involves used “KickIDs” which are private keys associated with a product and used to associate a physical shoe and its digital counterpart in order to facilitate implementation of ownership control. In assigning the digital KickID to a user, the record of the digital shoe is retrieved. Additionally, a user is able to search for digital products using other search criteria, such as a trait like shoe color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Andon with Yeung to specify search and record retrieval implementations.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1. Yeung fails to teach teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to retrieve an entity identifier of an entity with which the token is associated and an entity type of the token.
Andon teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to retrieve an entity identifier of an entity with which the token is associated (Fig. 2, col 3 lines 3-16, col. 4 lines 40-50) and an entity type of the token (lines 3-10 col 3 – “specific types of usage of the physical shoes, may impact digital representation”, col 18 lines 63-65). Andon describes using an ID system to represent specific information of the digital shoe. The ID system is comprised of code subsets which are representative of attributes of the shoe and can be considered analogous to entity types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Andon with Yeung in order to specify ID implementation and improve the use of an ID by coupling it with coded attribute information and allowing for quicker information retrieval.
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Yeung in view of Andon teaches the system of claim 5.Yeung further teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to retrieve an identifier of an add-on status for the token (paragraph [0027]), the add-on status comprising a signature, an event, or a numerical value (paragraphs [0027], [0033], [0047]). Yeung describes saving attributes of a digital counterpart when an event such as leveling up occurs. The attribute data can include the date of manufacture (analogous to event or numerical value), or physical characteristics. Yeung additionally describes synchronizing the digital object counterpart with information stored in the database, this synchronization involves retrieving the previously described add-on status in order to check for any changes to the digital counterpart in ensuring synchronization.
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung in view of Suh (WO 2018194379 A1) and Yano (US 2008/0049778 A1) .
Regarding claims 4 and 13 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the centralized or distributed ledger comprises a blockchain (Fig. 2 paragraphs [0002], [0039], [0045]), and wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to record the transfer of ownership of the token (paragraphs [0021], [0036]) by appending a block to the blockchain by generating a hash (paragraphs [0002], [0045]),
Yeung fails to teach generating a hash based at least on the token identifier and the account identifiers of the first and second user accounts wherein the hash is not based on the metadata of the token.
However, Suh teaches generating a hash based at least on the token identifier and the account identifiers of the first and second user accounts (paragraph 9 of page 9). Suh describes a method for using a card with blockchain based security. This involves generating a hash which is based on token ID, and user information. Suh is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of blockchain based control methods. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Suh with Yeung in order to create a representative hash and improve reliability and security.
Suh fails to specifically teach wherein the hash is not based on the metadata of the token.
However, Yano teaches wherein the hash is not based on the metadata (paragraph [0110]). Yano describes generating a hash using only ID information. The ID information is not metadata, therefore Yano teaches generating a hash not based on metadata. Yano is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of data communication. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Yano with Yeung in view of Suh in order to improve hash calculation time.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung in view of Gorman (US 10,880,088 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16-18 Yeung teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to: identify records in the centralized or distributed ledger that comprise the token identifier (paragraphs [0003], [0037], [0039]); a history request for a chain of ownership of the token (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0010], [0037], [0043], ) retrieve account identifiers indicating the previous owners of the token from the identified records (paragraph [0037]); the history request comprising the token identifier (claim 12, paragraph [0039]); Yeung describes creating a new node in a ledger record in order to transfer ownership. This node generation involves retrieving previous ownership information in association with the object (associated by an identifier) and linking the newly formed node with the previous chain of ownership record. This is analogous to a history request for chain of ownership of the token, using the token identifier to retrieve said information.
Yeung fails to teach wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to: receive, from a third one or more computing devices,
However, Gorman teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to: receive, from a third one or more computing devices, a request (Fig 1, col 2 lines 30-32 "data communication sources 110, 120, and 130", col 3 lines 33-43). Gorman describes data communication control. Gorman further describes the use of three data communication sources which can request information from a data communication target. This is analogous to one or more computing devices configured to receive from a third one or more computing device a request.
Gorman is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of arrangements for secure communication. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Gorman with Yeung in order to make use of a third computing device and allow for communication from a larger number of sources and enhance user experience.
Regarding claims 9 and 20 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to transmit the token identifier and the metadata about the token to one or more computing devices (Fig. 4 #410 & #430, Fig. 5 #510, #530, paragraphs [0004], [0023]), receipt of the token identifier and the metadata causing the one or more computing devices to store the token identifier and the metadata in an application (paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0061],).
Yeung fails to teach the third one or more computing devices.
However, Gorman teaches a third one or more computing devices (Fig 1, col 2 lines 30-32 "data communication sources 110, 120, and 130", col 3 lines 33-43). The motivation to combine Gorman and Yeung would have been the same as that of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung in view of Bridger (US 7,952,585 B2).
Regarding claims 8 and 19 Yeung teaches the system of claim 1. Yeung fails to teach wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to retrieve one or more animations (Figs. 4, 5, col. 4 lines 29-32, col. 19 lines 24-32) each depicting an entity associated with the token moving according to a set pattern (Figs. 4. 7a, 7b, col. 4 lines 29-36, col 10 lines 7-18).
However, Bridger teaches wherein the first one or more computing devices are further configured to retrieve one or more animations (Figs. 4, 5, col. 4 lines 29-32, col. 19 lines 24-32) each depicting an entity associated with the token moving according to a set pattern (Figs. 4. 7a, 7b, col. 4 lines 29-36, col 14 lines 7-18). Bridger describes an interactive animation environment that retrieves animations associated with a player controlled character, non-player controlled character or content characteristics. These animations are retrieved and the displayed animations follow the “same sequence of states”, but may change animations based on the particular user input. Bridger is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of computer graphics. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Bridger with Yeung in order to implement animations for an owned entity and to improve the user experience.
Conclusion
Yantis (US 11,334,876 B2) describes a digital wallet system which enables transferring digital tokens between users.
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 Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights