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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024, and 07/11/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a verification unit and a request unit in claims 1-6, a verification unit and an issuance unit in claims 8-11, a content information generation unit and a content information file generation unit in claims 13-18, a depth information generation unit in claim 16, a request unit in claim 17, and a content information generation unit, a content information file generation unit, a verification request unit, a verification unit, an issuance request unit in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 7-10, 12, and 20 are 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 1 recites “ a verification unit that performs verification whether content information…”. It is unclear whether the verification unit verifies the content information itself, verifies a condition associated with the content information or merely performs some unspecified verification operation. Similar language appears in claims 2, 3, 7-10, 12 and 20. Examiner suggest to amend the limitation either verification unit verifies whether content information.” or “a verification unit that performs verification of whether content information..”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, and 10 recites “whether the content information is valid using depth information”. The phrase fails to provide objective boundaries for the claim. The claim does not specify what condition makes the content information “valid”. What comparison or test is performed using the depth information, or what result indicates validity. Although the specification describes using depth information to determine whether a captured image has been counterfeited, the claims do not recite that validity means non counterfeiting correspondence between a captured image and depth information. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claims. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the request unit supplies the NFT issuance transaction to a device that requests issuance of the NFT”, while claim 1 recites that “a request unit that requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT)”. It is unclear whether the claimed request unit itself request issuance of the NFT as required but the claim 1, or whether another device performs the request by executing the supplied transaction from request unit. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claims. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “whether a requester of issuance of the NFT is valid” fails to provide objective boundaries for determining requester validity. It is unclear whether “valid” means authenticated, authorized, associated with a block chain address , the creator of the content information , an owner of the private key, a user terminal executing a transaction, or verified server. The specification describes multiple different checks relating to issuer/requester validity, including comparing blockchain address and verifying a transaction executor, but claim 11 does not identify which standard is required. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claims. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “an electronic signature corresponding to the blockchain address”. It is unclear whether the electronic signature signs the blockchain address, is generated using a private key associated with the blockchain address, is generated based on the content information and blockchain address or is merely stored together with blockchain address in the content information file. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the relationship between the electronic signature and the blockchain address. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testagrossa (US 20220345316 A1) in view of Yantis (US 20220058636 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Testagrossa teaches an information processing device (Testagrossa, one or more components of the system 100 are implemented on one or more digital devices…. Examples of digital devices include a computer, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, a netbook.., [0037]) comprising:
a verification unit that performs verification whether content information has been tampered with using an electronic signature (Testagrossa, obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature.. authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset,[0010] Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying whether that information has been tampered with by authenticating a cryptographic/digital signature and checking has digest as limitation above, The verification unit reads on trusted application 117/authentication page 119 authenticating cryptographic signature and hash of metadata]; and
a request unit that requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information in a case where it is determined as a result of the verification that the content information has not been tampered with (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above, The requesting unit reads on smart contract /NFT minting functionality triggered after verification];
Although, Testagrossa teaches verifying metadata describing the physical asset with electronic signature and issuing NFT based on the verification result, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
Verifying the content information (in light of specification, the content information being digital contents such as images) and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information
However, Yantis teaches:
Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information (Yantis, receiving, by a processing system, a request to tokenize an item, receiving, by the processing system, one or more photographs of the item, receiving, by the processing system, item information corresponding to the item includes a description of the item, generating, by the processing system, a virtual representation of the item based on the one or more photographs and the item information, requesting, by the processing system, an authentication of the item via a portal that is accessible by subject-matter authentication experts, wherein the portal displays the virtual representation of the item in the portal, receiving, by the processing system, an authentication report from a subject-matter authentication expert includes an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion, and in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, generating a digital token based on a virtual representation of the item and assigning an ownership of the token to an owner of the item, [0472] he platform 100 generates a set of tokens corresponding to the number of items available for transaction. For example, if the seller indicates that there are 100 Model X widgets available for sale, the platform 100 may generate a virtual representation of the Model X widget and may generate 100 non-fungible tokens corresponding to the virtual representation, whereby each token corresponds to a respective instance of the virtual representation, [0847] a tokenization request is received from a user device. At 1404, item information is received. In some embodiments, the item information may be provided by a user or via an automated processes. At 1406, a virtual representation of the item is generated, [0978] the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system receiving photograph and item information, generating virtual representation from that information, and authenticating the item through the authentication process as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Testagrossa to include a concept of Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information as taught by Yantis for the purpose of generating a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item [Yantis:0979].
Regarding claim 2, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the verification unit performs verification whether metadata of the content information has been tampered with using the electronic signature (Testagrossa, the asset metadata 124 may include a digital signature 132 associated with the physical asset 102 (e.g., a cryptographic signature of the unique identifier 130), [0034] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]0 [Examiner interprets system verifying metadata tampering using a digital/cryptographic signature as limitation above].
Regarding claim 3, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the verification unit performs verification whether the content information is valid using depth information corresponding to the content information (Yantis, the validation system includes an image capture system configured to capture a set of attributes of the item, [0510] the expert performs the authentication and/or appraisal based on the information uploaded by the user (e.g., one or more high resolution photographs of the virtual item, a 3D representation of the item, dimensions of the item, a weight of the item, and/or the like). The expert may provide an appraisal value and/or a determination indicating the authenticity of the item, [0943] the subject-matter expert may be presented with an image of the item, a description of the item (e.g., weight, dimensions, etc.), a video of the item, and/or the like. An authentication report may then be received by the processing system. The authentication report may be provided by a subject-matter authentication expert, which may include an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion. In some embodiments, the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying authenticity using item such as images, 3D representations, dimensions, and other captured attributes as limitation above].
Regarding claim 4, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the request unit generates an NFT issuance transaction that requests issuance of the NFT (Testagrossa, a smart contract indicating that a user is able to mint a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the piece of artwork when in the presence of the artwork…the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions., [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014]) [Examiner interprets that system minting a NFT through smart contract involves generating or invoking a blockchain transaction/request to issue/mint the NFT].
Regarding claim 5, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the request unit executes the NFT issuance transaction (Testagrossa, The method includes: (1) obtaining, by the first computing device, a single-use authentication link from a cryptographically-secure NFC chip securely located in a particular location; (2) sending the single-use authentication link from the first computing device to the second computing device…a smart contract indicating that a user is able to mint a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the piece of artwork when in the presence of the artwork…the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions., [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014]) [Examiner interprets that system minting a NFT through smart contract involves generating or invoking a blockchain transaction/request to issue/mint the NFT].
Regarding claim 6, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the request unit supplies the NFT issuance transaction to a device that requests issuance of the NFT (Testagrossa, a smart contract indicating that a user is able to mint a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the piece of artwork when in the presence of the artwork…the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions., [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014])
Although Testagrossa teaches supplying authentication information to another device that performs verification/minting, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
supplying the NFT issuance transaction to a device that requests issuance of the NFT
However, Yantis teaches:
supplying the NFT issuance transaction to a device that requests issuance of the NFT (Yantis, the token may be transmitted directly from the sender's user device 190 (e.g., from the user's digital wallet) to a user device 190 (e.g., smartphone) or account (e.g., email account or messaging application) associated with the intended recipient. Upon initiating the transmission, the digital wallet may transmit a transfer request to the platform 100 and may transmit a copy of the token to the recipient's user device 190 or specified account, [0848]The API system 106 may expose one or more APIs, such that the API system 106 may receive API calls from requesting devices or systems and/or may push data to subscribing devices or systems, [0856] the ledger bridging system 416 tokenizes a specified amount of currency by minting a tokenized token that “wraps” the certain amount of currency. A tokenized token may refer to a non-fungible token that has attributes that define the type of currency and an amount of currency represented by the coin (e.g., an amount of bitcoin, ethereum, dollars, pounds, or the like)… the ledger bridging system 416 mints the new token by requesting the generation of a new token by the token generation system 302. The ledger bridging system 416 may provide the type of currency, the amount of currency, and ownership data (e.g., the account to which the new tokenized token will belong) to the token generation system 302, [0915]) [Examiner interprets that system transmitting transfer/token request between devices, marketplace systems, APIs , smart contracts, token generation and ledger updates as limitation above].
Therefore. it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Testagrossa to include a concept of supplying the NFT issuance transaction to a device that requests issuance of the NFT as taught by Yantis for the purpose of generating a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item [Yantis:0979].
Regarding claim 7, Testagrossa teaches an information processing method comprising:
performing verification whether content information has been tampered with using an electronic signature (Testagrossa, obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature.. authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset,[0010] Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying whether that information has been tampered with by authenticating a cryptographic/digital signature and checking has digest as limitation above]; and
requesting issuance of a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information in a case where it is determined as a result of the verification that the content information has not been tampered with (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above];
Although, Testagrossa teaches verifying metadata describing the physical asset with electronic signature and issuing NFT based on the verification result, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
Verifying the content information (in light of specification, the content information being digital contents such as images) and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information
However, Yantis teaches:
Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information (Yantis, receiving, by a processing system, a request to tokenize an item, receiving, by the processing system, one or more photographs of the item, receiving, by the processing system, item information corresponding to the item includes a description of the item, generating, by the processing system, a virtual representation of the item based on the one or more photographs and the item information, requesting, by the processing system, an authentication of the item via a portal that is accessible by subject-matter authentication experts, wherein the portal displays the virtual representation of the item in the portal, receiving, by the processing system, an authentication report from a subject-matter authentication expert includes an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion, and in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, generating a digital token based on a virtual representation of the item and assigning an ownership of the token to an owner of the item, [0472] he platform 100 generates a set of tokens corresponding to the number of items available for transaction. For example, if the seller indicates that there are 100 Model X widgets available for sale, the platform 100 may generate a virtual representation of the Model X widget and may generate 100 non-fungible tokens corresponding to the virtual representation, whereby each token corresponds to a respective instance of the virtual representation, [0847] a tokenization request is received from a user device. At 1404, item information is received. In some embodiments, the item information may be provided by a user or via an automated processes. At 1406, a virtual representation of the item is generated, [0978] the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system receiving photograph and item information, generating virtual representation from that information, and authenticating the item through the authentication process as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Testagrossa to include a concept of Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information as taught by Yantis for the purpose of generating a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item [Yantis:0979].
Regarding claim 8, Testagrossa teaches an information processing device comprising:
a verification unit that performs verification whether content information has been tampered with using an electronic signature (Testagrossa, obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature.. authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset,[0010] Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying whether that information has been tampered with by authenticating a cryptographic/digital signature and checking has digest as limitation above, The verification unit reads on authentication page/trusted application authenticating cryptographic signature]; and
an issuance unit that issues a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information in a case where it is determined as a result of the verification that the content information has not been tampered with (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device (i.e., issuance unit) is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above, The issuance unit reads on the computing device/software/smart contract functionality that mints NFT];
Although, Testagrossa teaches verifying metadata describing the physical asset with electronic signature and issuing NFT based on the verification result, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
Verifying the content information (in light of specification, the content information being digital contents such as images) and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information
However, Yantis teaches:
Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information (Yantis, receiving, by a processing system, a request to tokenize an item, receiving, by the processing system, one or more photographs of the item, receiving, by the processing system, item information corresponding to the item includes a description of the item, generating, by the processing system, a virtual representation of the item based on the one or more photographs and the item information, requesting, by the processing system, an authentication of the item via a portal that is accessible by subject-matter authentication experts, wherein the portal displays the virtual representation of the item in the portal, receiving, by the processing system, an authentication report from a subject-matter authentication expert includes an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion, and in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, generating a digital token based on a virtual representation of the item and assigning an ownership of the token to an owner of the item, [0472] he platform 100 generates a set of tokens corresponding to the number of items available for transaction. For example, if the seller indicates that there are 100 Model X widgets available for sale, the platform 100 may generate a virtual representation of the Model X widget and may generate 100 non-fungible tokens corresponding to the virtual representation, whereby each token corresponds to a respective instance of the virtual representation, [0847] a tokenization request is received from a user device. At 1404, item information is received. In some embodiments, the item information may be provided by a user or via an automated processes. At 1406, a virtual representation of the item is generated, [0978] the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system receiving photograph and item information, generating virtual representation from that information, and authenticating the item through the authentication process as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Testagrossa to include a concept of Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information as taught by Yantis for the purpose of generating a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item [Yantis:0979].
Regarding claim 9, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the verification unit performs verification whether metadata of the content information has been tampered with using the electronic signature (Testagrossa, the asset metadata 124 may include a digital signature 132 associated with the physical asset 102 (e.g., a cryptographic signature of the unique identifier 130), [0034] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]0 [Examiner interprets system verifying metadata tampering using a digital/cryptographic signature as limitation above].
Regarding claim 10, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the verification unit performs verification whether the content information is valid using depth information corresponding to the content information (Yantis, the validation system includes an image capture system configured to capture a set of attributes of the item, [0510] the expert performs the authentication and/or appraisal based on the information uploaded by the user (e.g., one or more high resolution photographs of the virtual item, a 3D representation of the item, dimensions of the item, a weight of the item, and/or the like). The expert may provide an appraisal value and/or a determination indicating the authenticity of the item, [0943] the subject-matter expert may be presented with an image of the item, a description of the item (e.g., weight, dimensions, etc.), a video of the item, and/or the like. An authentication report may then be received by the processing system. The authentication report may be provided by a subject-matter authentication expert, which may include an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion. In some embodiments, the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying authenticity using item such as images, 3D representations, dimensions, and other captured attributes as limitation above] same motivation applies as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Testagrossa and Yantis teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the verification unit verifies whether a requester of issuance of the NFT is valid (Yantis, In addition to item data (e.g., virtual representations), tokens, and transaction data relating to the tokens, the distributed ledger may further store account information. For example, in embodiments the distributed ledger may store the public addresses of each valid account. In embodiments, a valid account may belong to an entity that is verified and authorized by the platform to participate in a transaction. Thus, in embodiments, a party may only sell, purchase, gift, receive, or otherwise transfer a token if the party has a known account. Each account may be assigned a public key and a private key that may be used to transact on the platform 100. In embodiments, the address of an account may be based on the public key of the account (e.g., the address may be a hash value of the public key). These addresses may be stored in the distributed ledger, such that addresses involved in a transaction may be verified as corresponding to valid accounts using the distributed ledger, [0846] the verification system 306 may be configured to verify the ownership of a token. In these embodiments, the verification system 306 may receive a public address to be verified and a token (or an identifier thereof). In some embodiments, the verification system 306 may verify that the public address corresponds to an account on the platform 100. For example, the verification system 306 may determine whether the public address is stored in the public address list on the distributed ledger 310. If so, the verification system 306 may determine whether the ownership data relating to the token is currently owned by the account indicated by the received public address. If so, the verification system 306 may verify the ownership of the token and may output the verification to the requesting system, [0894]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying that the user/account/public address is valid and authorized to participate in token transactions by verifying valid accounts using public addresses on the distributed ledger as limitation above] Same motivation applies as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Testagrossa teaches an information processing method comprising:
performing verification whether content information has been tampered with using an electronic signature (Testagrossa, obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature.. authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset,[0010] Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying whether that information has been tampered with by authenticating a cryptographic/digital signature and checking has digest as limitation above]; and
issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information in a case where it is determined as a result of the verification that the content information has not been tampered with (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device (i.e., issuance unit) is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above];
Although, Testagrossa teaches verifying metadata describing the physical asset with electronic signature and issuing NFT based on the verification result, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
Verifying the content information (in light of specification, the content information being digital contents such as images) and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information
However, Yantis teaches:
Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information (Yantis, receiving, by a processing system, a request to tokenize an item, receiving, by the processing system, one or more photographs of the item, receiving, by the processing system, item information corresponding to the item includes a description of the item, generating, by the processing system, a virtual representation of the item based on the one or more photographs and the item information, requesting, by the processing system, an authentication of the item via a portal that is accessible by subject-matter authentication experts, wherein the portal displays the virtual representation of the item in the portal, receiving, by the processing system, an authentication report from a subject-matter authentication expert includes an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion, and in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, generating a digital token based on a virtual representation of the item and assigning an ownership of the token to an owner of the item, [0472] he platform 100 generates a set of tokens corresponding to the number of items available for transaction. For example, if the seller indicates that there are 100 Model X widgets available for sale, the platform 100 may generate a virtual representation of the Model X widget and may generate 100 non-fungible tokens corresponding to the virtual representation, whereby each token corresponds to a respective instance of the virtual representation, [0847] a tokenization request is received from a user device. At 1404, item information is received. In some embodiments, the item information may be provided by a user or via an automated processes. At 1406, a virtual representation of the item is generated, [0978] the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0979]) [Examiner interprets that system receiving photograph and item information, generating virtual representation from that information, and authenticating the item through the authentication process as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Testagrossa to include a concept of Verifying the content information and requests issuance of a non- fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information as taught by Yantis for the purpose of generating a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item [Yantis:0979].
Claim 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantis (US 20220058636 A1) in further view of Goeringer (US 20170206523 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yatis teaches an information processing device comprising: a content information generation unit that generates content information according to an operation of a user (Yatis, the seller of an item (or any other suitable user) may access the platform 100 to define a virtual representation of the item that the seller is offering for transaction. The virtual representation of the item may include information that identifies the item (e.g., a serial number corresponding to the item, a model number of the item, and the like), information relating to the item (e.g., a classification of the item, textual descriptions, images, audio, video, virtual reality data, augmented reality data, and the like), and/or code that may be used to facilitate or verify transactions involving the item (e.g., smart contracts), [0838] The first graphical user interface may allow a user associated with a seller to offer items for sale and to create new virtual representations corresponding to the items for sale. The second user interface may allow users to purchase tokens corresponding to items for sale, to transfer tokens, and/or redeem tokens, [0841] In response to the seller providing the item attributes, the item management system 202 may generate a virtual representation of the item. In embodiments, the virtual representation may be a data record that includes the attributes of the item. In the scenario where the virtual representation was previously defined, the seller may select the previously defined item and may update one or more attributes. For example, the seller may provide additional media contents, may alter the price, and/or may update the number of items that are available. Whether an updated virtual representation or a newly defined virtual representation, the item management system 202 may output the virtual representation to the ledger management system 104, where the ledger management system 104 may tokenize instances of the virtual representation to obtain a set of tokens, [0869]) [Examiner interprets that system generating content information such as virtual representation/item information/media content when the seller/user enter item attributes/media through the GUI (i.e., operation of a user) through the GUI as limitation above]; and
Yatis does not explicitly teach:
a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user
However, Goeringer teaches:
a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user (Goeringer, Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] In step S1314, content publisher 1302 transmits a blockchain address and/or currency cost to electronic device 1308. [0119] purchase transaction 1702 is created by user electronic device 1510 (e.g., through a software application) to purchase content from content creator 1502. Once purchase transaction and 1002 is initiated, a license server (not shown) of DRM 1512 verifies that user electronic device 1510 initiated purchase transaction 1702. Content creator 1502 then creates a purchaseToken, which may include one or more of an asset ID, content rights, a public key of user electronic device 1510, a user authentication token, a signature of content creator 1502, and a public key of content creator 1502, [0135] In step S1808, retailer 1508 receives content purchase data from content creator 1502. In an exemplary embodiment, the content purchase data includes one or more of a URL for CDN 1708, a URL for DRM 1512, a blockchain address for the seller, a purchase price for the packaged content, and the purchase token, [0140] image hash 2216 includes, without limitation, one or more of the hash of the unprocessed image, the hardware certificate of device 2202, the hardware address (e.g., in an embodiment where image capture device 2202 is networked), the owner certificate or other account credentials, a timestamp.. Once encoded, the hash is added to metadata, [0163] an image hash (e.g., hash 2216, 2218, or 2220, FIG. 22) is submitted as a transaction 2408 to registry 2404 for ID certification and/or image registration, [0179] registry 2404 further serves to function as a certification server, and is configured to associate registered images with an appropriate user or device certificate, [0180] a blockchain is implemented to cryptographically assure the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [0187]) [Examiner interprets that storing ownership/account credentials and certificates with image hash/metadata as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Yantis to include a concept of a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user as taught by Goeringer for the purpose of integrating cryptographic processes to digital asset creation and processing systems (e.g., cameras, audio/audiovisual recorders, content creation and editing software, content processors, etc.) to provide more secure content distribution and stronger provenance to the digital content, [Goeringer :0152] and cryptographically assuring the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [Goeringer :0187].
Regarding claim 14, Yatis and Goeringer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, wherein the content information file generation unit stores the content information and an electronic signature corresponding to the blockchain address in the content information file (Goeringer, Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] a hash is used as a digital signature, utilized throughout process 2200, and which is also registered with a blockchain, for example, in order to for the owner of captured image 2206 to more demonstrably prove existence of a captured image, and still further more reliably assert ownership, [0159] one or more of the created digital signatures are embedded into the image file using encoding or steganography methods. In some embodiments, the digital signature(s) is also included in the metadata, [0165] An encryption subprocess 2312 then encrypts signed image 2310 and outputs encrypted image data 2314 to storage subprocess 2316, which saves (or alternatively transmits) encrypted image data 2314 as an encrypted file package together with the image metadata, [0168] the digital signing/cryptographic hashing of the asset onboard the digital asset capture/creation device prior to storage; (iii) the registration of the asset using a secure transactional database or distributed ledger such as a blockchain; (iv) the combination of metadata with the cryptographic hash that more reliably demonstrates ownership, [0200]) [Examiner interprets that system digitally signing the captured asst with cryptographic hash, outputting signed image to storage, saving signed image as a file package with metadata, and embedding the created digital signatures into the image file or including them in metadata, and the signatures/hash is registered with the blockchain and associated with the asset’s user/device/owner identity as limitation above] Same motivation applies as claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Yatis and Goeringer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, wherein the content information file generation unit stores a certificate including a public key corresponding to a private key unique to the information processing device in the content information file (Goeringer, Such cryptographic implementation may utilize certifications for the device, and/or for the user of the device, that assert strong device and/or personal identity, respectively… metadata may be registered using a secure transactional database or distributed ledger such as a blockchain, [0150] capture of contextual information relating to a captured image 2206, including without limitation, a time and date of capture, a camera ID (e.g., from a device certificate), a user or owner ID…[0157] Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] the hardware ID is a cryptographic device certificate, such as X.509, or alternatively, a GSMA-based identity… the metadata, and image hash 2216 and/or signature hashes 2218, 2220 may include the location information from the GPS. Subsequent assertion of ownership rights may be further reinforced and/or strengthened if one or more of the hashes further includes an owner ID, which may also be a cryptographic certificate, [0162] one or more of the hash of the unprocessed image, the hardware certificate of device 2202, the hardware address (e.g., in an embodiment where image capture device 2202 is networked), the owner certificate or other account credentials.. image hash 2216 is created at the time of image capture (e.g., operation of image capture subprocess 2204), and may then be included, by hashing subprocess 2214, as a portion of the processing (e.g., signature subprocess 2208) by any and all of the processing components of image capture device 2202, to be encoded into the image format that is subsequently and/or transmitted in storage subprocess 2212. Once encoded, the hash is added to metadata., [0163] one or more of the created digital signatures are embedded into the image file using encoding or steganography methods, the digital signature(s) is also included in the metadata, [0165] the digital signature and encryption utilize certificate-based identity management (e.g., X.509), SHA-256, ECC based PKI, and AES-128 which may be enabled by one or more TPMs to better ensure security, [0194]) [Examiner interprets that system teaching signed image/content file package whose metadata /hash includes a hardware/device certificate, owner certificate/credentials, and PKI based cryptographic identity information where that certificate information is encoded into the image format/or metadata of the file as limitation above] Same motivation applies as claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Yatis and Goeringer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, further comprising a depth information generation unit that generates depth information corresponding to the content information, wherein the content information file generation unit stores the depth information in the content information file (Yatis generating a virtual representation of the item based on the item attributes, wherein the virtual representation is a data structure that stores the item attributes, [0006] the validation system includes an image capture system configured to capture a set of attributes of the item, [0510] the seller of an item (or any other suitable user) may access the platform 100 to define a virtual representation of the item that the seller is offering for transaction. The virtual representation of the item may include information that identifies the item (e.g., a serial number corresponding to the item, a model number of the item, and the like), information relating to the item (e.g., a classification of the item, textual descriptions, images, audio, video, virtual reality data, augmented reality data, and the like), and/or code that may be used to facilitate or verify transactions involving the item (e.g., smart contracts). In some embodiments, the platform may “tokenize” an item on behalf of a seller of the item by generating a set of tokens based on the virtual representation of the item and storing the tokens and associated metadata in a cryptographically secure distributed ledger, thereby making the tokens (and the virtual representation) verifiable, transferable, and trackable, [0838] The user may provide an item classification (e.g., a baseball card, vintage clothing, jewelry, artwork, or the like), and one or more of: one or more high resolution photographs of the virtual item; a 3D representation of the item; dimensions of the item; a weight of the item; and/or the like, Once an expert wins a bid, the expert performs the authentication and/or appraisal based on the information uploaded by the user (e.g., one or more high resolution photographs of the virtual item, a 3D representation of the item, dimensions of the item, a weight of the item, and/or the like). The expert may provide an appraisal value and/or a determination indicating the authenticity of the item. [0943]) [Examiner interprets that system generating /using 3D representations, images captured with its attributes, dimensions (i.e., depth related attributes) corresponding to the item/content as limitation above].
Regarding claim 17, Yatis and Goeringer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, further comprising a request unit that requests verification of the content information and issuance of a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the content information by transmitting the content information file to another device (Yantis, generating, by the processing system, a virtual representation (i.e., the content information) of the item based on the one or more photographs and the item information, requesting, by the processing system, an authentication of the item via a portal that is accessible by subject-matter authentication experts, wherein the portal displays the virtual representation of the item in the portal, receiving, by the processing system, an authentication report from a subject-matter authentication expert includes an opinion indicating whether the subject-matter authentication expert deemed the item authentic or not-authentic and one or more reasons for the opinion, and in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, generating a digital token based on a virtual representation of the item and assigning an ownership of the token to an owner of the item, [0472] the platform 100 may generate a virtual representation of the Model X widget and may generate 100 non-fungible tokens corresponding to the virtual representation, [0847] the authentication system 804 presents a portal that allows a user (e.g., a seller or an employee of a facility that holds items) to upload a virtual representation of an item, The user may provide an item classification (e.g., a baseball card, vintage clothing, jewelry, artwork, or the like), and one or more of: one or more high resolution photographs of the virtual item; a 3D representation of the item; dimensions of the item; a weight of the item the expert performs the authentication and/or appraisal based on the information uploaded by the user [0943] At 1402, a tokenization request is received from a user device. At 1404, item information is received. In some embodiments, the item information may be provided by a user or via an automated processes. At 1406, a virtual representation of the item is generated. At 1408, the authenticity of the item is determined through suitable authentication process.. the platform may generate a digital token in response to an opinion indicating that the item is deemed authentic, and ownership of the digital token assigned to an owner of the item. The digital token may be based on a virtual representation of the item, [0978-0979]) [Examiner interprets that user/device uploading the virtual representation /data record/photos/item information to the tokenization/authentication platform, requesting authentication, and generating a token (NFT) in response to authenticity as limitation above].
Regarding claim 18, Yatis and Goeringer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, wherein the content information generation unit captures an image of a subject according to an operation of the user, and generates the captured image as the content information (Yatis, the seller of an item (or any other suitable user) may access the platform 100 to define a virtual representation of the item that the seller is offering for transaction. The virtual representation of the item may include information that identifies the item (e.g., a serial number corresponding to the item, a model number of the item, and the like), information relating to the item (e.g., a classification of the item, textual descriptions, images, audio, video, virtual reality data, augmented reality data, and the like), and/or code that may be used to facilitate or verify transactions involving the item (e.g., smart contracts), [0838] The first graphical user interface may allow a user associated with a seller to offer items for sale and to create new virtual representations corresponding to the items for sale. The second user interface may allow users to purchase tokens corresponding to items for sale, to transfer tokens, and/or redeem tokens, [0841] In response to the seller providing the item attributes, the item management system 202 may generate a virtual representation of the item. In embodiments, the virtual representation may be a data record that includes the attributes of the item. In the scenario where the virtual representation was previously defined, the seller may select the previously defined item and may update one or more attributes. For example, the seller may provide additional media contents, may alter the price, and/or may update the number of items that are available. Whether an updated virtual representation or a newly defined virtual representation, the item management system 202 may output the virtual representation to the ledger management system 104, where the ledger management system 104 may tokenize instances of the virtual representation to obtain a set of tokens, [0869]) [Examiner interprets that system generating content information such as virtual representation/item information/media content when the seller/user enter item attributes/media through the GUI (i.e., operation of a user) through the GUI as limitation above]; and
Yatis does not explicitly teach:
the content information file generation unit generates, as the content information file, an image file that stores the captured image and the blockchain address
However, Goeringer teaches:
the content information file generation unit generates, as the content information file, an image file that stores the captured image and the blockchain address (Goeringer, Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] In step S1314, content publisher 1302 transmits a blockchain address and/or currency cost to electronic device 1308. [0119] purchase transaction 1702 is created by user electronic device 1510 (e.g., through a software application) to purchase content from content creator 1502. Once purchase transaction and 1002 is initiated, a license server (not shown) of DRM 1512 verifies that user electronic device 1510 initiated purchase transaction 1702. Content creator 1502 then creates a purchaseToken, which may include one or more of an asset ID, content rights, a public key of user electronic device 1510, a user authentication token, a signature of content creator 1502, and a public key of content creator 1502, [0135] In step S1808, retailer 1508 receives content purchase data from content creator 1502. In an exemplary embodiment, the content purchase data includes one or more of a URL for CDN 1708, a URL for DRM 1512, a blockchain address for the seller, a purchase price for the packaged content, and the purchase token, [0140] image hash 2216 includes, without limitation, one or more of the hash of the unprocessed image, the hardware certificate of device 2202, the hardware address (e.g., in an embodiment where image capture device 2202 is networked), the owner certificate or other account credentials, a timestamp.. Once encoded, the hash is added to metadata, [0163] an image hash (e.g., hash 2216, 2218, or 2220, FIG. 22) is submitted as a transaction 2408 to registry 2404 for ID certification and/or image registration, [0179] registry 2404 further serves to function as a certification server, and is configured to associate registered images with an appropriate user or device certificate, [0180] a blockchain is implemented to cryptographically assure the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [0187]) [Examiner interprets that storing ownership/account credentials and certificates with image hash/metadata as limitation above] Same motivation applies as claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Yatis teaches an information processing method comprising: generating content information according to an operation of a user (Yatis, the seller of an item (or any other suitable user) may access the platform 100 to define a virtual representation of the item that the seller is offering for transaction. The virtual representation of the item may include information that identifies the item (e.g., a serial number corresponding to the item, a model number of the item, and the like), information relating to the item (e.g., a classification of the item, textual descriptions, images, audio, video, virtual reality data, augmented reality data, and the like), and/or code that may be used to facilitate or verify transactions involving the item (e.g., smart contracts), [0838] The first graphical user interface may allow a user associated with a seller to offer items for sale and to create new virtual representations corresponding to the items for sale. The second user interface may allow users to purchase tokens corresponding to items for sale, to transfer tokens, and/or redeem tokens, [0841] In response to the seller providing the item attributes, the item management system 202 may generate a virtual representation of the item. In embodiments, the virtual representation may be a data record that includes the attributes of the item. In the scenario where the virtual representation was previously defined, the seller may select the previously defined item and may update one or more attributes. For example, the seller may provide additional media contents, may alter the price, and/or may update the number of items that are available. Whether an updated virtual representation or a newly defined virtual representation, the item management system 202 may output the virtual representation to the ledger management system 104, where the ledger management system 104 may tokenize instances of the virtual representation to obtain a set of tokens, [0869]) [Examiner interprets that system generating content information such as virtual representation/item information/media content when the seller/user enter item attributes/media through the GUI (i.e., operation of a user) through the GUI as limitation above]; and
Yatis does not explicitly teach:
generating a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user
However, Goeringer teaches:
generating a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user (Goeringer, Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] In step S1314, content publisher 1302 transmits a blockchain address and/or currency cost to electronic device 1308. [0119] purchase transaction 1702 is created by user electronic device 1510 (e.g., through a software application) to purchase content from content creator 1502. Once purchase transaction and 1002 is initiated, a license server (not shown) of DRM 1512 verifies that user electronic device 1510 initiated purchase transaction 1702. Content creator 1502 then creates a purchaseToken, which may include one or more of an asset ID, content rights, a public key of user electronic device 1510, a user authentication token, a signature of content creator 1502, and a public key of content creator 1502, [0135] In step S1808, retailer 1508 receives content purchase data from content creator 1502. In an exemplary embodiment, the content purchase data includes one or more of a URL for CDN 1708, a URL for DRM 1512, a blockchain address for the seller, a purchase price for the packaged content, and the purchase token, [0140] image hash 2216 includes, without limitation, one or more of the hash of the unprocessed image, the hardware certificate of device 2202, the hardware address (e.g., in an embodiment where image capture device 2202 is networked), the owner certificate or other account credentials, a timestamp.. Once encoded, the hash is added to metadata, [0163] an image hash (e.g., hash 2216, 2218, or 2220, FIG. 22) is submitted as a transaction 2408 to registry 2404 for ID certification and/or image registration, [0179] registry 2404 further serves to function as a certification server, and is configured to associate registered images with an appropriate user or device certificate, [0180] a blockchain is implemented to cryptographically assure the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [0187]) [Examiner interprets that storing ownership/account credentials and certificates with image hash/metadata as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Yantis to include a concept of generating a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user as taught by Goeringer for the purpose of integrating cryptographic processes to digital asset creation and processing systems (e.g., cameras, audio/audiovisual recorders, content creation and editing software, content processors, etc.) to provide more secure content distribution and stronger provenance to the digital content, [Goeringer :0152] and cryptographically assuring the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [Goeringer :0187].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testagrossa (US 20220345316 A1) in view of Goeringer (US 20170206523 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Testagrossa teaches an information processing system comprising a content information generation device, a verification device, and a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance device (Testagrossa, the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] Fig 1, system 100, [0027] system 100 may also include a remote authentication device 140, one or more components of the system 100 are implemented on one or more digital devices. digital devices include a computer, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, [0036-0037]) [Examiner interpret that system consisting multi device system including user device, remote authentication device, server/repository, and NFT minting functionality as limitation above],
a verification request unit that requests verification of the content information (Testagrossa, a smart contract indicating that a user is able to mint a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the piece of artwork when in the presence of the artwork…the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions., [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014]), the verification device includes:
a verification unit that performs verification whether the content information has been tampered with using an electronic signature (Testagrossa, obtain, via the metadata pointer, metadata associated with the physical asset, the metadata including a cryptographic signature.. authenticate the cryptographic signature against the public authentication key and verify whether the hash digest is a cryptographic hash of the metadata obtained via the metadata pointer to obtain an authentication result for the physical asset,[0010] Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system verifying whether that information has been tampered with by authenticating a cryptographic/digital signature and checking has digest as limitation above, The verification unit reads on trusted application 117/authentication page 119 authenticating cryptographic signature and hash of metadata]; and
an issuance request unit that requests the NFT issuance device to issue an NFT corresponding to the content information in a case where it is determined as a result of the verification that the content information has not been tampered with (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above, The requesting unit reads on smart contract /NFT minting functionality triggered after verification]; and
the NFT issuance device includes an issuance unit that issues the requested NFT corresponding to the content information (Testagrossa, the method further includes minting the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0013] the second computing device (i.e., issuance unit) is further configured to mint the NFT in response to the verification result indicating that the first computing device was located at the particular location, subject to the additional conditions, [0014] If both the authentication of the digital signature 132 and the verification of the hash digest 109 succeed, then the authentication result is affirmative. If either or both of the authentication of the digital signature 132 or the verification of the hash digest 109 fail, then the authentication result is negative. Failure of the authentication of the digital signature 132 may indicate that the metadata 124 has been tampered with, [0049]) [Examiner interprets that system minting NFT in response to the verification result being affirmative as limitation above, The issuance unit reads on the computing device/software/smart contract functionality that mints NFT],
Although, content information be reasonably interpreted as metadata/content associated information for physical/digital asset, Testagrossa does not explicitly teach:
The content information, wherein the content information generation device includes: a content information generation unit that generates content information according to an operation of a user; a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user; supplying the content information file to the verification device;
However, Goeringer teaches:
The content information, wherein the content information generation device includes: a content information generation unit that generates content information according to an operation of a user (Goeringer, a digital asset security device, includes an asset capture unit configured to electronically capture a digital asset.., [0006] image capture subprocess 2204 includes the additional capture of contextual information relating to a captured image 2206, including without limitation, a time and date of capture, a camera ID (e.g., from a device certificate), a user or owner ID, [0157] Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158]) [Examiner interprets that asset capture unit/image capture subprocess which captures a digital asset/image, the content information reads on the captured image/digital asset and associated contextual metadata, and the user operation reads on the use/operation of the capture device or content creation system to capture or create the asset].
a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user (Goeringer, Captured image 2206 is input to a signature subprocess 2208, which then outputs a signed image 2210 to storage subprocess 2212, which saves (or alternatively transmits) signed image 2210 as a file package together with the image metadata, [0158] In step S1314, content publisher 1302 transmits a blockchain address and/or currency cost to electronic device 1308. [0119] purchase transaction 1702 is created by user electronic device 1510 (e.g., through a software application) to purchase content from content creator 1502. Once purchase transaction and 1002 is initiated, a license server (not shown) of DRM 1512 verifies that user electronic device 1510 initiated purchase transaction 1702. Content creator 1502 then creates a purchase Token, which may include one or more of an asset ID, content rights, a public key of user electronic device 1510, a user authentication token, a signature of content creator 1502, and a public key of content creator 1502, [0135] In step S1808, retailer 1508 receives content purchase data from content creator 1502. In an exemplary embodiment, the content purchase data includes one or more of a URL for CDN 1708, a URL for DRM 1512, a blockchain address for the seller, a purchase price for the packaged content, and the purchase token, [0140] image hash 2216 includes, without limitation, one or more of the hash of the unprocessed image, the hardware certificate of device 2202, the hardware address (e.g., in an embodiment where image capture device 2202 is networked), the owner certificate or other account credentials, a timestamp.. Once encoded, the hash is added to metadata, [0163] an image hash (e.g., hash 2216, 2218, or 2220, FIG. 22) is submitted as a transaction 2408 to registry 2404 for ID certification and/or image registration, [0179] registry 2404 further serves to function as a certification server, and is configured to associate registered images with an appropriate user or device certificate, [0180] a blockchain is implemented to cryptographically assure the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [0187]) [Examiner interprets that storing ownership/account credentials and certificates with image hash/metadata as limitation above].
supplying the content information file to the verification device (Goeringer, an electronic registry configured to receive a transaction from the electronic processing device. The transaction includes the cryptographic hash and metadata relating to the digital asset. The ecosystem further includes an electronic media viewer for experiencing digital content based on the digital asset, and an electronic network configured to receive a combination of the digital asset, the cryptographic hash, and the metadata from the electronic processing device and distribute the combination to the electronic media viewer as the digital content, [0007] an image hash (e.g., hash 2216, 2218, or 2220, FIG. 22) is submitted as a transaction 2408 to registry 2404 for ID certification and/or image registration… the hash is transmitted at one or more of the time image 2206 is captured (e.g., from image capturing process 2204), at the time image capture device 2202 is networked with ecosystem 2400, and any time an image (e.g., signed image 2210) is transferred from image capture device 2202, [0179] media viewer 2406 is capable of performing an interaction 2416 directly with registry 2404 for asset verification and/or licensing, [0180] a blockchain is implemented to cryptographically assure the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [0187]) [Examiner interprets that transmitting/submitting the signed image/hash/metadata to a registry or blockchain system for verification/registration and later allowing a media viewer to interact with the registry for asset verification/licensing as limitation above].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Yantis to include a concept of the content information, wherein the content information generation device includes: a content information generation unit that generates content information according to an operation of a user; a content information file generation unit that generates a content information file that stores the content information and a blockchain address corresponding to the user; supplying the content information file to the verification device as taught by Goeringer for the purpose of integrating cryptographic processes to digital asset creation and processing systems (e.g., cameras, audio/audiovisual recorders, content creation and editing software, content processors, etc.) to provide more secure content distribution and stronger provenance to the digital content, [Goeringer :0152] and cryptographically assuring the authenticity of the asset, its time of commit/creation, its creator/owner, and rights associated with the asset, [Goeringer :0187].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200034945 A1: “are directed to capturing verifiable images having an embedded immutable identity of things appearing in the image”.
US 20220294640 A1: “relates generally to the capture of digital media files, and more particularly some embodiments relate to the capture of authenticatable digital media files”
US 20210194699 A1: “relates to collecting and distributing a digital audiovisual item captured by a sensor using a blockchain server”
US 20200218886 A1: “re directed to a system and methods for determining a likelihood that an image that includes a user is a spoof or fake”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIKSHYA POUDEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1540. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon- Fri.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/S.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2436
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights