DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate both physical tokens and camera, reference character “106” has been used to designate both processor and AR tokens, and reference character “108” has been used to designate both network interface and overlay(s). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #258 in Fig. 2B, #310 in Fig. 3, #950 in Figs. 9A & 9B, . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Access point #906, communication devices #902 . 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: pg. 47 "token generation device 602", and pg. 64 "input/output devices 930a-830n" .
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 a owned entity and to improve the user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manzoor, M. Samarin, D. Mason and M. Ylianttila, "Scavenger Hunt: Utilization of Blockchain and IoT for a Location-Based Game," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 204863-204879, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3037182.
E. Vieira, J. Ferreira and P. C. Bartolomeu, "Blockchain Technologies for IoT Applications: Use-cases and Limitations," 2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Vienna, Austria, 2020, pp. 1560-1567, doi: 10.1109/ETFA46521.2020.9211927.
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 PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611