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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 6/12/2026.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/12/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 13 are amended.
Claims 6 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 16-19 are new.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 13 recite the limitations "the decrypted warranty", “the share ratio”, “the sharer’s personal information”, “the sharer’s private key signature”, “token trading transaction” and “the warranties”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the expert's personal information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14 and 15 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 14 recites the limitation “The system according to claim 6…”, however, in the applicant’s amendment filed on 06/12/2026, shows that claim 6 is cancelled. A person with ordinary skill in the art would be confused as to which system claim is claim 14 further limiting. Additionally, claim 15 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 12…”, however, claim 12 is also cancelled by the applicant. A person with ordinary skill in the art would be confused as to which method claim is claim 15 further limiting. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 depends on claim 6 and claim 15 depends on claim 12; however, both claims 6 and 12 were cancelled by the applicant’s amendment filed on 06/12/2026. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 14 and 16-18 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 8-11 and 15 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 13 and 19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 8, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method of controlling a blockchain-based shared asset trading system for trading by tokenizing a shared asset, comprising the steps of:
transmitting an original warranty containing an appraisal result of the shared asset and transmitting a warranty in which a sharer's signature has been entered to the original warranty;
receiving and storing, by a blockchain network, the original warranty in a smart contract block, issuing a token based on the smart contract block and generating an electronic wallet in which the token is stored; and
receiving the warranty in which the signature has been entered and transmitting a transaction including the warranty in which the signature has been entered and a token trading request to the blockchain network, wherein the blockchain network further decrypts the transaction using a public key received from the sharer terminals, compares the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block to verify whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether the sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio, and executes the token trading transaction to transmit the token to a buyer's wallet address only when the comparison confirms that the warranties are identical and all sharer signatures at their respective share ratios are verified.
Claim 8 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for facilitating the trade of shared assets. The claim achieves this by transmitting an original warranty, receiving the original warranty, storing the original warranty and issuing a token representing the stored original warranty; transmitting a warranty with a signature, receiving the warranty with the signature, transmitting a transaction including the received warranty with the signature and a request to trade a token, decrypting the transmitted transaction, comparing the transaction content and executing the transaction only when the compared warranties are identical. Claims 1 and 13 are significantly similar to claim 8. As such claims 1 and 13 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., fundamental economic practices).
In regards to “decrypts the transaction using a public key received from the sharer terminals” and “compares the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block to verify whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether the sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio” the examiner finds these to further recite an abstract idea as the recitations recite mental process using pen and paper and mathematical concept. Claims 1 and 13 are significantly similar to claim 8.
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a blockchain-based shared asset trading system, a blockchain network, a smart contract block and an electronic wallet merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11 and 14-19 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. The claims recite bolded claim elements as abstract ideas and non-bolded claim elements, if
any, as additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, claims 2-5, 7, 9-11 and 14-19 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites:
a distributed storage in which the original warranty is stored, wherein the distributed storage includes a local storage, a IPFS and a cloud, and is selected as any one of the local storage, the IPFS and the cloud by at least one sharer terminal.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for managing and facilitating the transfer of assets by storing appraisal and warranty information, associating the information with a token, and conducting transactions involving the token. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 3 and 9 recite:
when the number of the number of the sharers are two, receiving, from a sharer terminal provided on a first sharer side, share information of the shared asset of the first sharer side and a warranty in which the signature of the first sharer side has been entered so as to generate a first transaction;
transmitting the share information of the shared asset of the first sharer side and the warranty in which a signature of the first sharer side has been entered to a sharer terminal provided on a second sharer side,
receiving, from the sharer terminal provided on the second sharer side, the share information of the shared asset of the second sharer side and a warrant in which a signature of the second sharer side has been entered so as to generate a second transaction;
combining the first transaction and the second transaction; and
transmitting the combined first and second transactions to blockchain network.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for managing and facilitating the transfer of assets by storing appraisal and warranty information, associating the information with a token, and conducting transactions involving the token. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 4 and 10 recite:
when the number of the sharers exceed two, repeatedly performing a process of generating the transactions so as to generate transactions for all sharers;
combining the generated plurality of transactions; and
transmitting the combined transaction to the blockchain network.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for managing and facilitating the transfer of assets by storing appraisal and warranty information, associating the information with a token, and conducting transactions involving the token. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 5, 11 and 14-15 recite the:
each sharer’s signature is entered with the sharer’s private key to the original warranty, and each of the plurality of sharer terminals transmit a public key of the respective sharer to the blockchain network
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for managing and facilitating the transfer of assets by storing appraisal and warranty information, associating the information with a token, and conducting transactions involving the token. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 7 recites:
the at least one sharer terminal select a range of intellectual property rights such that only rights are transferred to buyers.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for managing and facilitating the transfer of assets by storing appraisal and warranty information, associating the information with a token, and conducting transactions involving the token. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 16 recites:
the plurality of sharer terminals receive, from an expert terminal, the original warranty containing appraisal information on the shared asset, ownership proof information of a seller, and warranty signature information of an expert, and wherein the plurality of sharer terminals request access to the expert's personal information, qualification certificate, and career information and receive the same from an issuing agency server.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a plurality of sharer terminals and an expert terminal fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 17 recites:
the token issued by the blockchain network is a non-fungible token (NFT), and wherein the smart contract block comprises basic information including sharer information and asset type, and extension information including a hash value of the original warranty, a date of generation of the original warranty, and guarantor information of the shared asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a blockchain network, a smart contract block and a non-fungible token (NFT) fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 18 recites:
the blockchain network's comparison of the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block verifies whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether each sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio, thereby preventing any token trading unless all sharers have signed the identical original warranty with their private keys at their respective share ratios, and providing a tamper-proof cryptographic enforcement mechanism that eliminates the risk of unauthorized or fraudulent transfers of fractional ownership interests in the shared asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a smart contract block fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 19 recites:
the extension information stored in the smart contract block includes the hash value of the original warranty, such that any alteration to the appraisal result or share information in the warranty is detectable by the blockchain network prior to token execution, thereby ensuring data integrity and trust in the tokenized shared asset.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a smart contract block fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20220029810 A1) in view of Yoon (US 2022/0147961 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 13, Tang discloses:
transmitting an original warranty containing an appraisal result of the shared asset and (¶0056, In an example process, second user and first user may decide that they want to enter into a contract or want to sign a document that requires both their signatures (such as an assignment of their rights to a patent or the like). A document or smart contract may be generated (Step 390), such as digital document or smart contract 310. The document may be generated using word processing software and may be written in any language or format. The document may be revised by both second user and first user until both are satisfied with the terms and conditions in the document. After the document is completed, both second user and first user may agree that the document should be e-signed. ¶0059, The transactions may indicate who originated the transaction (i.e., FROM) and the information that is in the transaction. For example, the information may be simply a hash value (i.e., a hash) that represents the information that the user intended to upload to the blockchain. The hash and/or the information may be encrypted or unencrypted. In addition to the specific example transactions (e.g., 312, 353, 354, 357 and 358), there appear to be several transactions stored on the blockchain. For example, user's uploaded identifying documents (that may or may not be encrypted), and/or a hash (i.e., hash value) of those documents; one or more trusted third-party servers leaving an ownership document endorsement token (ODET); signatures on the document as user's sign the document; metadata including information such as who is supposed to sign it and when the contract offer expires. ¶0072, In some examples, the electronic signature computer application may cause the computing device processor to generate a hash value related to the document. The electronic signature computer application may cause the processor to store an initial hash value indicating the presence of a document at the document address as an initial transaction in the blockchain associated with the document address (425). ¶0073, At 430, the computing device may generate a document associated with the document address for review by a user. The generated document may include a textual document and document execution requirements. The textual document may be a contract or some other document that requires validation by obtaining signatures of parties named in the document (i.e., execution of the document). In an example, a smart contract may allow a document to be generated based on attributes of the smart contract.)
transmitting a warranty in which a sharer's signature has been entered to the original warranty; (¶0062, For example, in response to determining that the first user's wallet signature is required, the electronic signature application 342 via the first user's digital wallet 352 may generate commands to sign the document, sign a hash of the document (i.e., the document hash) or some other form of indicating by applying the first user's signature that the first user agrees to the terms of the document at step 393. In response to the first user signing the document hash #ABCD 312, a refreshed hash value is generated from the first user's signing of the document hash #ABCD 357 and is stored in the document digital wallet as a transaction in ledger 365 from the first user's digital wallet 352. When the second user signs the refreshed hash value of the first user's signing of the document hash #ABCD, another hash value is generated as the Hash from Second User's signing of Refreshed Hash of First User's signing of document #ABCD 358. The hash of the second user's signing of the document hash #ABCD 358 may be stored at 394 via the second user's digital wallet 351 in the ledger 365 of the document digital wallet 360. The generation of a new or refreshed hash value after each user signs the document or document hash prevents a subsequent user from submitting a signature on an old copy of the document. ¶0076, At 460, in response to electronically executing the document via the computing device of the second user, an executed document hash value of a version of the generated document electronically executed by the second user may be generated.)
receiving and storing, by a blockchain network, the original warranty in a smart contract block, (¶0006, An initial hash value of a document at the document address may be stored as an initial transaction in the blockchain associated with the document address. ¶0057, Once the contents of the document are agreed upon, a hash function, such as SHA-256 or the like, may be applied to the document (Step 391). A hash function is any function that can be used to map input data of arbitrary size to a hash value of a fixed size. The document hash may be applied to the document by the smart contract, an electronic signature application, such as 141A-C, or the like executing on a user device that generated the document. Alternatively, the document may be provided to another system, such as the identity and e-signature verification system 140, for application of the hash function. ¶0074, After the document is generated, an authentication document hash value by applying a hash function to the generated document may be obtained from or by the electronic signature computer application (435). The authentication document hash may be stored as a subsequent transaction at the document address in the blockchain (440). ¶0072, In some examples, the electronic signature computer application may cause the computing device processor to generate a hash value related to the document. The electronic signature computer application may cause the processor to store an initial hash value indicating the presence of a document at the document address as an initial transaction in the blockchain associated with the document address (425).)
generating an electronic wallet in which the token is stored; and (¶0071, A document address may be generated (420) via an electronic signature computer application being executed by a computer processor of a computing device.)
receiving the warranty in which the signature has been entered and (¶0006, In response to electronically executing the document via the computing device of the second user, an executed document hash value of a version of the generated document electronically executed by the second user may be generated. The executed document hash value may be stored as another subsequent transaction at the document address in the blockchain. ¶0075, In addition, a final version of the document may be identified for electronic execution by the first and the second user. A hash value of the identified final version of the document may be generated, and the identified final version hash value may be maintained in the blockchain associated with the document address. In an example that utilizes a smart contract, a copy of the identified final version of the document inputting into the smart contract and the smart contract may be forwarded to the second user for electronic signature. ¶0076, The second user computing device may, for example, be installed with an electronic signature application instance, such as 141C of FIG. 1. At 460, in response to electronically executing the document via the computing device of the second user, an executed document hash value of a version of the generated document electronically executed by the second user may be generated. ¶0078, The executed document hash value may be stored as another subsequent transaction at the document address in the blockchain (470).)
Tang further discloses:
A computer-readable storage medium (¶0008, An example of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program code executable by a processor is also disclosed. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program code executable by a processor execution of the computer-readable program code may cause the processor to present a menu of smart contracts available from a smart contract repository.)
Tang does not disclose, however Yoon teaches:
issuing a token based on the smart contract block and (Yoon ¶0069, …the online transaction server 100 may generate an ownership token contract for distributing the collectable ownership at a step of S202. Yoon ¶0072, Specifically, the ownership token structure may include information on the collectable, information on an ownership token ID, and a cardinal number of issued ownership tokens. Yoon ¶0078, …in response to verifying the first server signature value, register the ownership token contract, included in the contract registering transaction, in the blockchain network 200…)
transmitting a transaction including the warranty in which the signature has been entered and a token trading request to the blockchain network, (Yoon ¶0091, Furthermore, the online transaction server 100 may generate an ownership transferal transaction which includes the ownership token contract ID, the ownership transferal information acquired by referring to the ownership distribution participation information, a second server signature value, which is a signature value of the online transaction server, and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value, at a step of S210, and broadcast the ownership transferal transaction to the blockchain network 200, at a step of S211… ¶0111, … generate an ownership token transferal transaction which includes the ownership token contract ID, a new buyer's digital wallet address, a new cardinal number of the ownership tokens to be transferred, and a specific buyer signature value which is acquired by signing (ii-1-1) at least one of the ownership token contract ID, the new buyer's digital wallet address, and the new cardinal number of the ownership tokens to be transferred with a specific buyer private key of the specific buyer, or (ii-1-2) at least one third hash value of at least one of the ownership token contract ID, the new buyer's digital wallet address, and the new cardinal number of ownership tokens to be transferred with the specific buyer private key of the specific buyer, at a step of S302…)
wherein the blockchain network further decrypts the transaction using a public key received from the sharer terminals, (Yoon ¶0099, Furthermore, the online transaction server 100 may instruct the blockchain nodes 200-1, 200-2, . . . , 200-n to (i-1) (i-1-1) (i-1-1-1) decrypt the second server signature value and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value by using a transaction server public key of the online transaction server 100 and each of public keys of the first administrator to the k-th administrator,… or (i-1-2) (i-1-2-1) decrypt the second server signature value and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value by using the transaction server public key and each of the public keys of the first administrator to the k-th administrator)
compares the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block to verify whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether the sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio, and (Yoon ¶0093, Moreover, upon verifying the second server signature value and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value, the online transaction server 100, may instruct the blockchain nodes 200-1, 200-2, . . . , 200-n to (i) execute the ownership token contract corresponding to the ownership token contract ID, at a step of S214, to thereby check whether a ratio of (1) target multi-signers for comparison corresponding to the first administrator to the k-th administrator to (2) standard multi-signers corresponding to the first administrator to the m-th administrator satisfies a predetermined ratio… ¶0099, check whether the first hash value matches with the second hash value, to thereby verify the second server signature value and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value.)
executes the token trading transaction to transmit the token to a buyer's wallet address only when the comparison confirms that the warranties are identical and all sharer signatures at their respective share ratios are verified. (Yoon ¶0093, (ii) if the predetermined ratio is satisfied, transfer ownership tokens corresponding to the collectable to the first buyer 400-1 to the n-th buyer 400-n who have participated in the ownership distribution according to the ownership transferal information. Yoon ¶0100, Moreover, in response to verifying the second server signature value and the first administrator signature value to the k-th administrator signature value, the online transaction server 100 may instruct the blockchain nodes 200-1, 200-2, . . . , 200-n to (i) execute the ownership token contract, to thereby check whether the ratio of (1) the target multi-signers for comparison corresponding to the first administrator to the k-th administrator to (2) the standard multi-signers corresponding to the first administrator to the m-th administrator satisfies the predetermined ratio, and (ii) if the predetermined ratio is satisfied, transfer the first cardinal number of the ownership tokens to be transferred to the n-th cardinal number of the ownership tokens to be transferred respectively to the first buyer's digital wallet address to the n-th buyer's digital wallet address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Tang disclosure with Yoon‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable secure tokenization and transfer of assets.
Further, the claimed limitation “to…” in “compare the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block to verify whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether the sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio” and “execute the token trading transaction to transmit the token to a buyer's wallet…” consist of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Furthermore, in the method claim, the claim limitation “execute the token trading transaction to transmit the token to a buyer's wallet address …” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when “the comparison confirms that the warranties are identical and all sharer signatures at their respective share ratios are verified”.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tang and Yoon further discloses:
the blockchain network's comparison of the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block verifies whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether each sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio, thereby preventing any token trading unless all sharers have signed the identical original warranty with their private keys at their respective share ratios, and providing a tamper-proof cryptographic enforcement mechanism that eliminates the risk of unauthorized or fraudulent transfers of fractional ownership interests in the shared asset. (Tang ¶0111, The processing unit 804 may perform further functions of the process such as verifying the document is unaltered by confirming the document hash is unchanged upon receipt of the signed document hash from the second user. A record of transactions including document hash values associated with the document wallet stored in the blockchain may be retrieved. The processing unit 804 may apply a hash function to the document. After the hash function is applied, the resulting hash value may be compared to the signed document hash values in the blockchain network record. Based on the result of the comparison, the verification of the document as being unaltered may be confirmed, and in response to the confirmation, the smart contract may be marked as complete.)
Further, the claimed limitation “the blockchain network's comparison of the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block verifies whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether each sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio, thereby preventing any token trading unless all sharers have signed the identical original warranty with their private keys at their respective share ratios, and providing a tamper-proof cryptographic enforcement mechanism that eliminates the risk of unauthorized or fraudulent transfers of fractional ownership interests in the shared asset.” only describe characteristics of the blockchain network's comparison which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tang, and Yoon further discloses:
the extension information stored in the smart contract block includes the hash value of the original warranty, such that any alteration to the appraisal result or share information in the warranty is detectable by the blockchain network prior to token execution, thereby ensuring data integrity and trust in the tokenized shared asset (Tang ¶0008, A document hash value may be produced from the generated document. The document hash value may be stored in the blockchain at the smart contract address. ¶0038, The instance of the electronic signature application instance 141A executing on the user computing device 101A may store a document hash as a transaction of the smart contract in the blockchain 105. The document hash may be used to authenticate that the document was generated by a verified user associated with the first user's computing device, in this example, 101A. Alternatively, or in addition, either one of the electronic signature applications 141A-C or the electronic signature component 144 may validate the integrity of the document address by evaluating the blockchain 105, which may be associated with the document address.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the extension information stored in the smart contract block includes the hash value of the original warranty, such that any alteration to the appraisal result or share information in the warranty is detectable by the blockchain network prior to token execution, thereby ensuring data integrity and trust in the tokenized shared asset” only describe characteristics of the extension information which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Yoon as applied to claim 1, in further view of Shii (US 2021/0382966 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose, however Shii teaches:
a distributed storage in which the original warranty is stored, wherein the distributed storage includes a local storage, a IPFS and a cloud, and is selected as any one of the local storage, the IPFS and the cloud by at least one sharer terminal. (Shii ¶0070, FIG. 2, ownership on the BCN and access to the data of the artwork itself can be managed by being directly linked online. For example, cooperation between the IPFS (Interplanetary File System), which is a distributed storage mechanism, and the BCN according to this embodiment is also possible. In this case, it is also possible to link to the original image data (not shown). Shii ¶0234, The BCN certificate information can be shared with services participating in the BCN around the world and can therefore also be linked to the services of other companies. Cooperation between an IPFS (file storage), which is a distributed storage mechanism, and the BCN is also possible. In this case, it is also possible to link to the original image data (not shown). Shii ¶0239, A-(2) denotes distributed storage (IPFS or the like) for managing both artwork certificates and the large-volume artwork data of digital artworks on the BCN.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Tang and Yoon’s combination with Shii‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance the system scalability and accessibility to large, accessed data along while continuing to use blockchain for data integrity and immutability.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the distributed storage includes a local storage, a IPFS and a cloud, and is selected as any one of the local storage, the IPFS and the cloud by at least one sharer terminal” only describe characteristics of the distributed storage which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claims 3-5, 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Yoon as applied to claim 1, 8 and 13, in further view of Scott (US 2016/0335629 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose, however Scott teaches:
when the number of the number of the sharers are two, (Scott ¶0287, Two or more participants, who are known to each other, construct transaction blocks 140)
receiving, from a sharer terminal provided on a first sharer side, share information of the shared asset of the first sharer side and a warranty in which a signature of the first sharer side has been entered so as to generate a first transaction; (Scott ¶0067, receiving a first block of data digitally signed by a first owner and having a first holding transfer certificate digitally signed by the first owner, the first block of data describing a first holding offered by a first owner in exchange for a requested second holding; See claim 20)
transmitting the share information of the shared asset of the first sharer side and the warranty in which the signature of the first sharer side has been entered to a sharer terminal provided on a second sharer side, (Scott ¶0288, Two or more participants, who are not known to each other, construct transaction blocks 140. Blocks are transferred to a TTP (an intermediary within the exchange 14 or the exchange itself) who then in the same transaction will transfer them to the intended recipient.)
receiving, from the sharer terminal provided on the second sharer side, the share information of the shared asset of the second sharer side and a warrant in which a signature of the second sharer side has been entered so as to generate a second transaction; (Scott ¶0067, receiving a second block of data digitally signed by a second owner and having a second holding transfer certificate digitally signed by the second owner, the second block of data describing a third holding offered by the second owner in exchange for a requested fourth holding. See claim 20)
combining the first transaction and the second transaction; and transmitting the combined first and second transactions to blockchain network. (Scott ¶0062, Preferably, the system may further comprise a transaction assembler configured to assemble two or more blocks of data into a single transaction. Scott ¶0222, The transaction 150 is sent as a single message into the transaction server 18, which, as an atomic operation… Scott ¶0288, The exchange or transaction assembler 14 will build the overall transaction and submit it the transaction server 18. Scott ¶0287, One of the participants takes responsibility for building the overall transaction message 150 and submitting it to the transaction server 18. See claim 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Tang and Yoon’s combination with Scott‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to perform reliable multi signature/user transactions in which each user transaction signs, validates and transaction and then they are combined into one single transaction that is then executed in the blockchain.
Further, in the method claim, the claim limitation “receive, from a sharer terminal provided on a sharer side, share information of the shared asset of a first sharer side and a warranty in which a signature of the first sharer side has been entered, so as to generate a first transaction, transmit the share information of the shared asset of the first sharer side and the warranty in which the signature of the first sharer side has been entered to a sharer terminal provided on a second sharer side, and receive, from the sharer terminal provided on the second sharer side, the share information of the shared asset of the second sharer side and a warranty in which a signature of the second sharer side has been entered so as to generate a second transaction; combine the first transaction and the second transaction; and transmit the combined transaction to the blockchain network” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required “when the number of the sharers are two”.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “so as to…” in “…receive, from a sharer terminal provided on a sharer side, share information of the shared asset of a first sharer side and a warranty in which a signature of the first sharer side has been entered, so as to generate a first transaction…” consist of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the combination of Tang, Yoon and Scott further teaches:
when the number of the sharers exceed two, repeatedly performing a process of generating the transactions so as to generate transactions for all sharers; (Scott ¶0076, receiving a third block of data digitally signed by a third owner and having a third holding transfer certificate digitally signed by the third owner, the third block of data describing a fifth holding offered by the third owner in exchange for a requested sixth holding; Scott ¶0288, Two or more participants, who are not known to each other, construct transaction blocks 140.)
combining the generated plurality of transactions; and transmitting the combined transaction to the blockchain network. (Scott ¶0062, Preferably, the system may further comprise a transaction assembler configured to assemble two or more blocks of data into a single transaction. Scott ¶0222, The transaction 150 is sent as a single message into the transaction server 18, which, as an atomic operation… Scott ¶0288, The exchange or transaction assembler 14 will build the overall transaction and submit it the transaction server 18. Scott ¶0287, One of the participants takes responsibility for building the overall transaction message 150 and submitting it to the transaction server 18. See claim 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify the combination of Tang, Yoon and Scott with Scott‘s additional. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to perform reliable multi signature/user transactions with more than 2 users in which each user transaction is signed, validated and then combined into one single transaction that is then executed in the blockchain.
Further, in the method claim, the claim limitation “repeatedly performing a process of generating the transactions so as to generate transactions for all sharers; combining the generated plurality of transactions; and transmitting the combined transaction to the blockchain network.” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required “when the number of the sharers exceed two”.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “so as to…” in “…repeatedly performs a process of generating the transactions so as to generate transactions for all sharers…” consist of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 14-15, the combination of Tang, Yoon and Scott further discloses:
each sharer’s signature is entered with the sharer’s private key to the original warranty, and (Yoon ¶0081, Furthermore, the online transaction server 100 may generate the first server signature value by electronically signing the ownership token contract with a transaction server private key of the online transaction server 100,)
each of the plurality of sharer terminals transmit a public key of the respective sharer to the blockchain network (Scott ¶0051, Optionally, the ownership log may further record the public keys of all previous owners of each holding and data indicating which of the public keys identifies the latest owner of the holding. Scott ¶0072, The first and second owners may have one or more public keys (associated with different holding transfer certificates) stored in the ownership log.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify the combination of Tang, Yoon and Scott with Scott‘s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements because it is a fundamental requirement for blockchain systems to enable signature verification.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Yoon and Shii as applied to claim 2, in further view of Scott (US 2016/0335629 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tang, Yoon and Shii does not disclose, however Scott teaches:
the at least one sharer terminal selects a range of intellectual property rights such that only rights within that preset range of intellectual property rights are transferred to buyers. (Scott ¶0117, The use of eligibility criteria within the terms of the right enables improved flexibility, allowing issuers to set eligibility criteria appropriate to the terms of the right being issued, without requiring the maintenance of a complex central data model. Some rights may need no criteria and these may be held completely anonymously. In other cases, an issuer can obtain the identities of some or all parties holding its right. This may leverage the natural synergies that exist because certain organizations already collect data to evaluate eligibility in the course of other business activities. Scott ¶0189, A conditions section in the right certificate 110 may contain general conditions, that could apply to any instrument and which are used by the system 10 to ensure that only legitimate transactions are performed. Example conditions include: [0190] Eligibility: Are there eligibility requirements or not? Can this instrument be exchanged with anyone or not? [0191] Limit of Transfers: Are there any limits on the number of times the holding can be transferred? [0192] Time Limit: Is there a time limit on when the holding can be transferred? [0193] Divisibility: Can a fractional quantity of the right be held or does the right always need to be held as numbers of whole units? [0194] Tax: Is there a requirement to include transaction tax payments or exemptions in any transfer?)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify the combination of Tang, Yoon and Shii with Scott‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure legal compliance, reduce disputes and provide business flexibility by restricting and defining the scope of the rights being transferred.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Yoon as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hara (WO 2023026507 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose, however Hara teaches:
the plurality of sharer terminals receive, from an expert terminal, the original warranty containing appraisal information on the shared asset, ownership proof information of a seller, and warranty signature information of an expert, and (P.15 ¶3, The appraiser will send the generated appraisal (appraisal with electronic signature) to the client. Specifically, the appraiser operates the appraiser terminal 32 to transmit the appraisal to the client's user terminal 30 (step S33 in FIG. 20).)
wherein the plurality of sharer terminals request access to the expert's personal information, qualification certificate, and career information and receive the same from an issuing agency server (P.17 ¶7, In addition, the owner of the work of art may request the appraisal or restoration of the work of art if the appraiser or restorer is successfully authenticated. For example, the user operates the user terminal 30 to acquire biometric information of an appraiser or the like. The user terminal 30 may transmit the acquired biometric information to a server managed by an organization (such as an appraisal association) to which the appraiser belongs, and request biometric authentication. When the biometric authentication is successful, the user trusts the appraiser or the like in front of him and requests the appraisal or the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tang and Yoon with Hara’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure that the appraisal information was provided by a trusted appraiser.
Further, the claimed limitation “containing appraisal information on the shared asset, ownership proof information of a seller, and warranty signature information of an expert” only describe characteristics of the original warranty which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Yoon as applied to claim 1, in further view of Haruna (WO 2022202973 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose, however Haruna teaches:
the token issued by the blockchain network is a non-fungible token (NFT), and wherein the smart contract block comprises basic information including sharer information and asset type, and extension information including a hash value of the original warranty, a date of generation of the original warranty, and guarantor information of the shared asset. (P.25 ¶2, The system 30 according to the third embodiment generates a certificate NFT to provide a certificate NFT, such as a warranty certificate NFT. The system 30 can communicate via a network with a user computer such as a terminal 300 (user terminal) possessed by a user who wishes to issue a certificate NFT. ¶7, The system 30 according to the third embodiment can generate a warranty certificate NFT according to the type of product to be guaranteed and provide it to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify the combination of Tang and Yoon with Haruna‘s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure that the token can be used to uniquely identify the warranty and it can be distinguished from other tokens.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the smart contract block comprises basic information including sharer information and asset type, and extension information including a hash value of the original warranty, a date of generation of the original warranty, and guarantor information of the shared asset” only describe characteristics of the smart contract block which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the previous non-final office action have been withdraw in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant asserts that the claims as amended now explicitly recite a specific technological improvement that integrates any purported judicial exception into a practical application and provides significantly more. The basis for these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 10-11.
The examiner has considered these assertions and finds them not persuasive and respectfully disagree. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea of managing and facilitating the transfer of assets among multiple parties which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., fundamental economic practices). As amended, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the blockchain itself as asserted by the applicant. The recited decryption of the multi-sharer transaction utilizing public keys, document-level comparison of the decrypted warranty against stored warranty in the smart contract and conditional execution of the token transfer constitute mathematical concepts and mental processes because these operations rely on mathematical algorithms and comparison techniques. Here, the blockchain is merely used to apply the abstract idea and the claim does not recite any particular improvement to the operations of the blockchain, or cryptographic protocol utilized for decryption. Therefore, there is no improvement to the blockchain technology or computer itself or a solution to a technical problem.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the
newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared towards claims amendments and claim 103 rejections on previous non-final.
In regard to claims 1, 8 and 13, the applicant asserts that the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose the amended claim. Specifically, the applicant asserts that the combination of Tang and Yoon does not disclose a warranty document containing an expert-certified appraisal result and specific share ratios for each co-owner, verifying that each co-owner's private key signature is present at that co-owner's specific share ratio within the warranty or an electronic wallet management server that sequentially collects per-sharer signed warranties and generates individual per-sharer transactions, as required by the claims. First, in regard to the assertion that the combination does not disclose “a warranty document containing an expert-certified appraisal result and specific share ratios for each co-owner”, the examiner has carefully reviewed this argument and respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does not recite a warranty document containing an expert-certified appraisal result and specific share ratios for each co-owner. The claim merely recites “an original warranty containing an appraisal result of the shared asset” which only describe characteristics of the original warranty which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Second, in regard to the assertions that the combination does not disclose “verifying that each co-owner's private key signature is present at that co-owner's specific share ratio within the warranty or an electronic wallet management server that sequentially collects per-sharer signed warranties and generates individual per-sharer transactions, as required by the claims”, the examiner has carefully reviewed this argument and respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does not recite such limitations. Instead, the claim merely recites comparing the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block. The subsequent language merely identifies the intended result from the comparison (i.e. verifying whether the contents of the warranty, including the share ratio and the sharers' personal information, are identical and whether the sharer's private key signature is present at the corresponding share ratio). Such intended result does not impose a further limitation on the claimed comparison. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein)
In regard to claim 2, the applicant asserts that Shii discloses a type of distributed storage that is used for storing large volume artwork files while the claimed distributed storage in claim 2 is used storing a co-owner-signed appraisal warranty. The applicant asserts that these two types of distributed storage are used for fundamentally different applications. The examiner has carefully reviewed these arguments and respectfully disagrees. The applicant is relying on a distinction based on the type of content being stored in the distributed storage. The particular use of the distributed storage does not establish a patentable distinction. Further, the subsequent use of the stored warranty for comparison or verification does not alter the underlining functionality or structure of the distributed storage. Moreover, the applicant further asserts that the combination of Tang, Yoon and Shii still “fail to supply the share-ratio-keyed private key signature verification required by the independent claims from which claim 2 depends”. The examiner has carefully reviewed these arguments and respectfully disagrees. As previously mentioned, independent claims 1, 8 and 13 do not recite such verification limitations. Instead, the claim merely recites comparing the decrypted warranty with the original warranty stored in the smart contract block.
In regard to claims 3-5, 9-11 and 14-15, the applicant asserts that Scott does not disclosed “the electronic wallet management server sequentially receives each sharer's signed warranty, generates a per-sharer transaction for each, combines all per- sharer transactions, and transmits the combined transaction to the blockchain network, which then performs the share-ratio-keyed verification of claim 1” and instead it discloses “a pre-blockchain rights-certificate exchange system in which a transaction assembler collects digitally signed data blocks from participants” The examiner has carefully reviewed these arguments and respectfully disagrees. Scott’s transaction assembler teaches the underlining concept of collecting digitally signed data blocks from different participants and assembling them into a single transaction for subsequent processing. The fact that Scott operates in a pre-blockchain rights certificate exchange system does not negate its teaching of the claimed transaction assembly functionality. Further, the applicant asserts that the server “sequentially” receives each sharer’s signed warranty. However, the applicant reliance on the term “sequentially” is misplaced. The claims do not require that the sharer’s signed warranties be received or processed in a sequence. Therefore, whether Scott’s disclosure process transactions in sequence or not is irrelevant to the claimed limitation. Moreover, the applicant asserts that one in ordinary skills in the art would not have been motivated to combine Tang and Yoon with Scott because “Yoon's multi-signature paradigm relies on administrator signatures, meaning the item owner is passive after the initial distribution request. Scott assembles transactions from participants exchanging holdings, with no concept of co-owners who each sign an appraisal warranty with their private key at their specific share ratio. Combining Yoon's administrator-signature model with Scott's participant- exchange model would, if anything, lead a person of ordinary skill away from requiring every co-owner to sign at a specific share ratio - precisely the mechanism that enforces unanimous consent in the claimed invention. Such a combination would require impermissible hindsight. The examiner has carefully reviewed these arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertions improperly consider the references individually rather than their combined teaching. The references do not need to disclose identical systems or contemplate the precise claim arrangement. The fact that Yoon relies on administrator signatures does not teach away from applying its multi signature teaching to transactions involving multiple owners. Nor does Scott’s disclosure of participants exchanging holdings prevent applying its transaction assembly mechanism to a different multi-party framework. Applicant has not established that the references teach away from the proposed combination making the assertion of impermissible hindsight unsupported.
In regard to claim 7, the applicant asserts that Scott does not disclose sharer terminal selection of an IP rights range for token transfer. The examiner has carefully reviewed these arguments and respectfully disagrees. Scott teaches defining and enforcing rights associated with digital certificates, including which rights can be transferred. Therefore, Scott’s disclosure of defined and limited rights supports the claimed selection and restriction of rights. Further, the claim limitation “wherein the at least one sharer terminal selects a range of intellectual property rights such that only rights within that preset range of intellectual property rights are transferred to buyers” only describe characteristics of the at least one sharer which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 20210248616 A1 to Foster discloses: The present disclosure involves systems and methods for establishing an auditable and tamperproof record of warranty activities among parties to an associated digital warranty file. A blockchain or other distributed ledger may be used to encrypt, seal, and authenticate data associated with a warranty and stored with a warranty management system. Milestones and decisions associated with the digital warranty file may be encrypted and sealed on the blockchain to provide a fully auditable and non-repudiable record of the warranty process, thereby creating a trustworthy validation of warranty file activity as it moves through a warranty claim process. The blockchain based seals allow all participating parties to confidently rely on the information shared. Blockchain based seals of a warranty file or other data may assure the information cannot be tampered with, while reducing costs for researching and verifying each transaction.
US 20200153607 A1 to Shi discloses: Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for digital asset transfer. One of the methods includes: obtaining a request for transferring a quantity of a digital asset from a first blockchain account associated with a blockchain to a second blockchain account associated with the blockchain, wherein the request identifies a tangible asset corresponding to the digital asset; determining a blockchain contract that is deployed on the blockchain and that corresponds to the tangible asset identified in the request; generating, based on the obtained request, a blockchain transaction for transferring the quantity of the digital asset from the first blockchain account to the second blockchain account, wherein the blockchain transaction invokes the determined blockchain contract; and sending the generated blockchain transaction to a blockchain node for adding to the blockchain.
US 20190222418 A1 to O’Brien discloses: Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are related to a system for key exchange in a blockchain based system associated with warranty-ownership of physical objects. Embodiments of the key exchange system can include user terminal devices, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and a computing system.
US 20200265516 A1 to Xu discloses: Embodiments relate to providing trusted tokenized transactions in a blockchain system. In one embodiment, a tokenization request may include identification information. A fiduciary server may apply a cryptographic private key to a hash of the identification information to generate a digital signature. An exchange server may cause a transmission of the digital signature to a blockchain. The blockchain includes a set of code instructions that verify the digital signature. The verification may include applying the public key corresponding to the cryptographic private key to decrypt the digital signature to re-generate the hash of the identification information. The hash may ensure the integrity of the identification information. The code instructions recorded on the blockchain, when executed, cause a computer to generate a blockchain unit. The tokenized transactions are traceable to the digital signature of the fiduciary server. This may provide a trusted transaction for users of the blockchain regarding the tokenized transactions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights