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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08/10/2026, has been entered and fully considered.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection of claims 1, 11 for including a duplicated phrase has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 23, 26, 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 11-13, 16-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cannot be interpreted as being directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. However, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B).
The claimed steps of “acquiring sensor data…” and “processing …the sensor data” correspond to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, these claimed steps perform the mental process on a genetic computer of a “hardware processor”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1).
The claimed steps of “creating a unique digital asset…” and “storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset…” correspond to limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind with the use of pen and paper, performed in a computer environment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2). For example, a tokenizing a sequence encompasses creating a digital representation of the sequence, which corresponds to performing the mental process of creating a representation of the sequence on a generic computer. Further, processing a sequence into a cryptographic hash on a hardware processor uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process of calculating a cryptographic hash. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Further, a mirrored unique asset of a real-world tangible asset is a pen and paper drawing of the real-world tangible asset. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, claimed steps of “creating a unique digital asset…” are the same steps that humans in analogous situations use to draw a picture using pen and paper and storing provenance/state data are the same steps that humans do to write information using pen and paper. Further, storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset is a lower-quality drawing of a real-world tangible asset on paper. The claimed steps of “storing … as a decentralized distributed digital ledger in a secured cloud storage architecture” merely use computers as a tool to perform the mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Therefore, the claimed invention of claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea of a mental process under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, 16-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103, see pages 11-14, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Nevertheless, Applicant argues, see page 13, that Fasano does not teach or suggest the claimed features. However, Fasano does teach acquiring sensor data from a real-world tangible asset from one or more proprioceptive sensors (Fasano: paragraph [0002], “a digital system operating based on versatile digital avatars providing exact replicas or digital twins of physical objects and processes”; paragraph [0026], “The status parameters 43 are assigned to the digital twin representation 4, wherein the values of the status parameters 43 associated with the digital twin representation 4 are dynamically monitored and adapted based on the transmitted parameters”; paragraph [0028], “The structural and/or operational and/or environmental status parameters 43 can e.g. comprise endogen parameters, whose values are determined by the real-world asset or object… proprioceptive sensors or measuring devices for sensing endogen operating or status parameters of the real-world asset or object”). As explained further below in this Office Action, Fasano in combination with other cited prior art does teach the features of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 17 recite the limitation “extereoceptive”. The Examiner will assume this is a typographical error and the correct spelling of this limitation is “exteroceptive”. See References Cited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification was amended by the filing on 05/01/2026. The amendments to paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0068, 0088 and 00131 include corrections to the terms “extereoceptively” and “extereoceptive”, which are incorrect. The Examiner will assume this is a typographical error and the correct spelling of these terms are “exteroceptively” and “exteroceptive”, respectively. See References Cited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 16-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is noted that original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. More specifically, the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed; See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 16, they recite “storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset as a decentralized distributed digital ledger in a secured cloud storage architecture” (emphasis added). Paragraph [00113] of the instant specification discloses “The CPS Sequence is associated with the Proxy as part of a universally-unique digital identifier. This identifier may then be used to associate an instance's Proxy with an entry on a Distributed Ledger”.
The claims, as recited, encompass the lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset being stored “as a” decentralized distributed digital ledger, suggesting that the representation may be stored as a ledger itself. The specification discloses that an identifier may be stored ‘with an entry on’ a distributed ledger. The specification does not disclose that the identifier may be stored ‘as a’ distributed ledger.
In this instance, there is no disclosure whatsoever on how a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset can be stored “as a” decentralized distributed digital ledger. Thus, the claim limitation is not adequately supported by the specification by a description as to how the function is performed necessary to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5, 12-13, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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, 11-13, 16-18, 22, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, comprising: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing…the sensor data…”, “creating…a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, comprising: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing…the sensor data…”, “creating…a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing…the sensor data…”, “creating…a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
The Examiner notes that claims 23, 26, 29, as amended, integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application to improve the functioning of a computer.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., computer system, hardware processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, decentralized distributed digital ledger, secured cloud storage architecture) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., acquiring, processing, creating, storing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed sensor data, feature sets, attributes, landmarks, state-space reconstruction model, lower-fidelity representation, provenance data, state data, information based on a history of data acquisition, modifications, maintenance, and custody are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, processing the sensor data, creating the unique digital asset, learning a state-space reconstruction model, performing one or more frequency analysis processes, uniquely identifying an asset which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Similarly, acquiring sensor data, extracting unique landmarks, storing a representation, a unique digital asset comprises provenance data and state data is merely storing, updating and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further note that the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., an artist observes an object, creates a list of identified features of the object by identifying unique landmarks on the object and draw a detailed painting based on the identified features. The artist stores the list.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, 16-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al. (US Pat No 10,505,726; hereinafter Andon) in view of Fasano (USP App Pub 2021/0248289).
Regarding claim 1, A method (Andon: claim 1, “A method for automating generation of cryptographic digital assets associated with articles of footwear”) comprising:
acquiring sensor data from a real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the user 11 employing their smartphone 40 may scan the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10”) from … one or more extereoceptive sensors (Andon: col 18, lines 43-45, “the user scans the box UPC with a barcode scan feature in a sneakers app operating on the user's smartphone” i.e., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the user scanning the UPID or UPC on the shoe uses a barcode scan feature on the user’s smartphone; Applicant specification: paragraph [0068], “exterioceptive (externally- measuring) sensors such as those found in smart phones”);
processing, by a hardware processor (Andon: col 16, lines 19-22, “processor-executable instructions that may be stored, for example, in main or auxiliary or remote memory, and executed, for example, by a resident or remote controller, central processing unit (CPU)”), the sensor data that is acquired (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the user 11 employing their smartphone 40 may scan the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10” i.e., the smartphone processes a scan/image of the UPC code on the shoe to extract the UPC code) to generate a digital sequence (Andon: col 17, lines 43-47, “a universally recognized UPID product code may be used to retrieve a collectible CryptoKick, which is generally composed of a collectible digital shoe 44 and a unique NFT that is identified by an encrypted token key 46”) that comprises one or more feature sets that are representative of one or more attributes (Andon: col 20, lines 45-51, “the genotype and phenotype information contained in encrypted token key 46 includes the digital shoe's: breeding attributes (“collab”), materials information, make data (“family”), manufacturing requirements (“heat”), color combination (“colorway”), future attributes, model data, and image background information”) of the real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 15, lines 28-31, “a color of a CryptoKick may depend on the genetically assigned color … via a linked pair of physical shoes in the real world”);
creating, by the hardware processor, a unique digital asset (Andon: col 7, lines 26-30, “computer-generated virtual collectibles, such as digital shoes (e.g., “CryptoKicks”), that, in some instances, are linked with real-world, physical products, such as tangible shoes, and are protected by cryptographic tokens”) by tokenizing the digital sequence (Andon: col 3, lines 65-67 to col 4, lines 1-2, “transmitting, via the middleware server computer to a distributed blockchain ledger (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, etc.), the unique digital shoe ID code and the unique owner ID code for recordation on a transaction block”; claim 2, “the unique digital shoe ID code includes a cryptographic token key with a code string segmented into a series of code subsets, wherein a first plurality of the code subsets includes data indicative of attributes of the digital shoe”) that is processed into a cryptographic hash (Andon: col 4, lines 64-67, “the unique digital shoe ID code may include a cryptographic token, and the digital notification sent to the second party may include a unique key with a hashed address to the cryptographic token”) so that the unique digital asset mirrors the one or more attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 8, lines 32-34, “an originally created CryptoKick may include cryptographic token data that is representative of attributes from a companion physical shoe”) by performing a high-fidelity mirroring operation that observes system and interaction dynamics of the one or more attributes (Andon: col 20, lines 54-56, “genotypic changes in an encrypted token key may be caused by real world…interactions, leading to alterations of a cryptographic digital asset's phenotypic characteristics”) and adapts to learn an efficient state-space reconstruction model (Andon: col 2, lines 40-42, “The digital representation may include a computer-generated avatar of the shoe”; col 15, lines 11-16, “a virtual object generator 62 may be provided to create a digital object on the basis of the genomic information associated with the token. More specifically, the virtual object generator 62 may be responsible for expressing the genomic information into a plurality of phenotypic traits”; Instant application specification: paragraph [0110], “adapting to learn an efficient state- space reconstruction model appropriate for the measurable and hidden attributes of the asset, in this case, a key. This is called the "minimum viable representation," and it depends both on the system being mirrored and the end-use applications for its data”) appropriate for one or more measurable attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 20, lines 57-62, “A gene representing high heat and rare heat could be changed from Hhrr to HHRR due to epigenetic factors like the following: usage of real-world shoes may increase a likelihood of a genetic mutation or passing of a “good qualities” variation of genes to offspring” i.e., usage of the real-world shoe is measurable) and one or more hidden attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 20, lines 45-50, “the genotype and phenotype information contained in encrypted token key 46 includes the digital shoe's: …future attributes”; col 20, lines 54-56, “genotypic changes in an encrypted token key may be caused by real world…interactions, leading to alterations of a cryptographic digital asset's phenotypic characteristics” i.e., future attributes of the shoe are hidden because they are in the future and therefore not measurable in the present), wherein the unique digital asset comprises provenance data (Andon: col 8, lines 42-44, “a cryptographic digital asset—a “CryptoKick”—composed of a collectible digital shoe and a unique non-fungible token (NFT)”) and state data (Andon: col 20, lines 45-50, “the genotype and phenotype information contained in encrypted token key 46 includes the digital shoe's: …color combination (“colorway”); col 8, lines 32-34, “an originally created CryptoKick may include cryptographic token data that is representative of attributes from a companion physical shoe”), wherein the provenance data attests to a trustworthiness and accuracy of the real-world tangible asset, the unique digital asset (Andon: col 7, lines 57-61, “all references to “CryptoKicks” and variations of the term within this disclosure should be understood to be exemplary of a virtual collectible backed by a unique, [non-fungible] token or registry entry within an immutable database”; col 8, lines 34-37, “During the creation of a CryptoKick, a smart contract may be generated to authenticate ownership and to track future transaction of the CryptoKick”), or both the unique digital asset and the real-world tangible asset and the state data provides information on a current state of use or wear of the real-world tangible asset, the unique digital asset (Andon: col 15, lines 28-30, “a color of a CryptoKick may depend on the genetically assigned color, together with the age of the asset and/or use of the asset in a virtual world” i.e., use of the asset in the virtual world is a current state of use of the digital asset), or both the unique digital asset and the real-world tangible asset; and
storing a lower-fidelity representation (Andon: claim 2, “the unique digital shoe ID code includes a cryptographic token key with a code string segmented into a series of code subsets, wherein a first plurality of the code subsets includes data indicative of attributes of the digital shoe”; Instant application specification: paragraph [0108], “When the User seeks to monitor the asset's identity or provenance for supply chain and other lower-frequency applications, the Asset Manager shares with the user the CPS Sequence itself” i.e., a lower-fidelity representation of the asset encompasses the sequence itself) of the unique digital asset as a decentralized distributed digital ledger (Andon: col 3, lines 65-67 to col 4, lines 1-2, “transmitting, via the middleware server computer to a distributed blockchain ledger (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, etc.), the unique digital shoe ID code and the unique owner ID code for recordation on a transaction block”) in a secured cloud storage architecture (Andon: col 14, lines 14-16, “As a decentralized blockchain platform, computing system 30 operates as an open, yet encrypted peer-to-peer network”).
Andon does not teach …from one or more proprioceptive sensors and…
However, it the same field of endeavor, Fasano does teach …from one or more one or more proprioceptive sensors (Fasano: paragraph [0002], “a digital system operating based on versatile digital avatars providing exact replicas or digital twins of physical objects and processes”; paragraph [0026], “The status parameters 43 are assigned to the digital twin representation 4, wherein the values of the status parameters 43 associated with the digital twin representation 4 are dynamically monitored and adapted based on the transmitted parameters”; paragraph [0028], “The structural and/or operational and/or environmental status parameters 43 can e.g. comprise endogen parameters, whose values are determined by the real-world asset or object… proprioceptive sensors or measuring devices for sensing endogen operating or status parameters of the real-world asset or object”) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the scanning confirmation of Andon (Andon: col 30, lines 10-13, “a scanning confirmation verifying a universal product code (UPC) and/or a unique product identifier number (UPIN) corresponding to a make and a model of the article of footwear has been scanned”) to incorporate the teachings of Fasano to use proprioceptive sensors to identify physical objects. The motivation for doing so is to identify real assets or objects unambiguously (Fasano: paragraph [0037], “system 1 comprises an identification mechanism for unambiguous identification of the real asset/object 3, a mechanism for identifying new real assets/objects 3”).
Regarding claim 2, Andon and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data is acquired (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the user 11 employing their smartphone 40 may scan the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10”) from the one or more proprioceptive sensors, the one or more extereoceptive sensors (Andon: col 18, lines 43-45, “the user scans the box UPC with a barcode scan feature in a sneakers app operating on the user's smartphone” i.e., a smartphone camera is an exteroceptive sensor; Applicant specification: paragraph [0068], “exterioceptive (externally- measuring) sensors such as those found in smart phones”), manually entered data, derived identifiable digital data, metadata, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Andon and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the processing (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the user 11 employing their smartphone 40 may scan the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10” i.e., the smartphone processes a scan/image of the UPC code on the shoe to extract the UPC code) comprises performing one or more frequency analysis processes, one or more cepstrum analytic processes, one or more filtering processes, one or more wavelet analysis processes, one or more spectral analysis processes, one or more image processing processes (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the user 11 employing their smartphone 40 may scan the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10”; See References Cited), one or more computer vision processing processes, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 22, Andon and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein
the provenance data (Andon: col 8, lines 42-44, “a cryptographic digital asset—a “CryptoKick”—composed of a collectible digital shoe and a unique non-fungible token (NFT)”; col 8, lines 32-34, “an originally created CryptoKick may include cryptographic token data that is representative of attributes from a companion physical shoe”) comprises information based on a history of data acquisition (Andon: col 17, lines 11-14, “A platform-dictated smart contract associated with the locker may facilitate transfer of stored assets and create a verifiable audit trail of the same”), modifications (Andon: col 17, lines 11-14, “A platform-dictated smart contract associated with the locker may facilitate transfer of stored assets and create a verifiable audit trail of the same” i.e., a transfer of the asset is a change to the ownership of the asset and therefore a modification), maintenance (Andon: col 21, lines 4-7, “frequent interactions (e.g., trading, selling, buying, and collaboration) with other assets or other apps may lead to positive gene mutation” i.e., frequent interactions cause positive gene mutation which is upkeep to maintain the asset in better condition), and a custody of the real-world tangible asset, the unique digital asset (Andon: col 7, lines 57-61, “all references to “CryptoKicks” and variations of the term within this disclosure should be understood to be exemplary of a virtual collectible backed by a unique, [non-fungible] token or registry entry within an immutable database”; col 8, lines 34-37, “During the creation of a CryptoKick, a smart contract may be generated to authenticate ownership and to track future transaction of the CryptoKick”), or both the unique digital asset and the real-world tangible asset.
Regarding claim 23, Andon and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, further comprising…
Andon does not teach …sequencing, at regular intervals, both the real-world tangible asset and the unique digital asset to update a status of both the real-world tangible asset and the unique digital asset over time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fasano does teach …sequencing, at regular intervals, (Fasano: paragraph [0025], “Having involved a plurality of measuring devices and sensors, the present system is able to constantly or periodically monitor and trigger multiple components of a system, real-world asset or living object 3”) both the real-world tangible asset and the unique digital asset (Fasano: paragraph [0034], “the digital twin 4 of the twinned physical system 3, i.e. the digital virtual replicas are constantly updated and analyzed by measuring data from their real counterparts”) to update a status of both the real-world tangible asset and the unique digital asset over time (Fasano: paragraph [0026], “status parameters 43 of the real-world asset or object 3 are measured and transmitted to the digital platform 1. The status parameters 43 are assigned to the digital twin representation 4, wherein the values of the status parameters 43 associated with the digital twin representation 4 are dynamically monitored and adapted based on the transmitted parameters 43”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mirroring operation of Andon (Andon: col 8, lines 32-34, “an originally created CryptoKick may include cryptographic token data that is representative of attributes from a companion physical shoe”) to incorporate the teachings of Fasano to periodically monitor and update the digital twin based on the physical object. The motivation for doing so is to have a realistic and in-sync digital representation (Fasano: paragraph [0037], “realistic equivalent digital representation of a physical asset or object 3, i.e. a technical avatar, which is always in [sync] with it”).
Re. claims 11-13, 16-18, 25-26, 28-29, they recite analogous limitations as claims 1-3, 1-3, 22-23, 22-23, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon in view of Fasano in further view of Santosa et al. (USP App Pub 2013/0068841; hereinafter Santosa).
Regarding claim 4, Andon and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein
the one or more feature sets (Andon: col 20, lines 45-51, “the genotype and phenotype information contained in encrypted token key 46 includes the digital shoe's:… model data”) … associated with the one or more attributes (Andon: col 30, lines 10-13, “a scanning confirmation verifying a universal product code (UPC) and/or a unique product identifier number (UPIN) corresponding to a make and a model of the article of footwear has been scanned” i.e., the UPC code corresponds to the model data that is included in the encrypted token key 46) of the real-world tangible asset (Andon: col 17, lines 48-49, “the UPID or UPC on the shoe 10”)…
Andon and Fasano do not teach … are resistant to perturbations so that one or more unique landmarks… are uniquely identifiable…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Santosa does teach … are resistant to perturbations (Santosa: paragraph [0093], “FIGS. 8A and 8B indicate that the greedy algorithm appears to be highly robust to additive noise”) so that one or more unique landmarks (Santosa: paragraph [0045], “ example bar code 56 consists of black segments 58 and white segments 60, the reflected energy will be large when the beam is on the white part, and small when it is on the black part”)… are uniquely identifiable (Santosa: paragraph [0092], “the greedy algorithm successfully recovered the original UPC bar code”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the UPC scanner of Andon and Fasano to incorporate the teachings of Santosa to use a robust UPC scanner. The motivation for doing so is to scan the code in a way that is insensitive to noise (Santosa: paragraph [0027], “the symbol-based approach to optical code decoding may be insensitive to noise in the obtained signal and to other unknown parameters of a scanning device”).
Regarding claim 5, Andon, Fasano and Santosa teach the method of claim 4, wherein
the one or more unique landmarks (Santosa: paragraph [0045], “ example bar code 56 consists of black segments 58 and white segments 60, the reflected energy will be large when the beam is on the white part, and small when it is on the black part”) are extractable without prior knowledge or human intervention (Santosa: paragraph [0027], “symbol-based algorithms may determine the encoded information directly from an obtained signal from an optical code (e.g., one- or two-dimensional optical codes), without first estimating the dimensions of elements within the optical code such as black and white bars of a bar code”).
The motivation to combine references in claim 5 is the same as the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 4.
References Cited
Santosa et al. (USP App Pub 2013/0068841; hereinafter Santosa) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that scanning a UPC code using a camera includes image processing (Santosa: paragraph [0027], “The symbol-based technique may include a greedy algorithm developed for the specific type of targeted bar code, such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) bar code … From the signal or image obtained from the optical code, the symbol-based algorithm may exploit the symbology of optical codes (i.e., the language of the code) to produce the likeliest sequence of symbols, and their associated encoded characters, that fit the signal or image”; paragraph [0105], “the same approach of first estimating the parameters in the decoding model and then applying a greedy algorithm of the model can be applied to the problem of decoding any optical code from a camera based scanner”).
Collins (Exteroceptive Definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary, www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/exteroceptive. Accessed 20 Sept. 2026.) is cited to show the common and well-known spelling of the word “exteroceptive”.
Simon et al. (USP App Pub 2015/0142082; hereinafter Simon) is cited to show the common and well-known spelling of the word “exteroceptively” (Simon: paragraph [0182]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
