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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 10 have been amended. No Claims been canceled. Claims 13-16 have been newly added. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 7, 9-10, and 15-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claims 1, 7, 9-10 and 15-16, the applicant recites the limitation “the graph”, this is a typographical error and a lack of antecedent basis as the graph was never previously recited. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to read “the sub-graph” or “the general graph” to recite consistent claim language. For claim interpretation purposes Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the graph to be a branch or sub-tree. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 03/18/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and wherein the graph is progressively enriched over time and extended with new encrypted blocks corresponding to newly collected personal data”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Su et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210326476) further in view of Blevins et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220027992), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089) and Haldar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200344062) further in view of Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 8-11, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-16 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Innes-Haldar- Acharya teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims 1 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to Claim 11-12, claims 11 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 11 and 12 are directed to “a computer program” and recites “a computer program comprising instructions for the execution”. The specifications is silent on any further definition of the computer program therefore Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the claims to be software per se. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089, hereinafter referred to as “Innes”) and Haldar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200344062, hereinafter referred to as “Haldar”) further in view of Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171, hereinafter referred to as “Acharya”)
In regards to Claim 1, Innes teaches a process for constitution of a history of personal data of a user, the process being executed by a terminal of the user and comprising: (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain), (Par. (0018-0020); collection of social media accounts with personal data (individual online transactions with user behavior, content, attendance, location etc.)), (Figure 1 label 115, 125; being executed by a terminal of the user (user 115, 125 with network interface and device))
- collecting personal data of the user; (Par. (0018-0020 and 0027-0028); history of social media and collecting of user personal data in form of online transaction in blocks, data stored corresponding to behavior, user posting, activity etc. in each block))
- throughout the collection of said personal data of the user: (Par. (0018-0020 and 0027-0028); history of social media and collecting of user personal data in form of online transaction in blocks, data stored corresponding to behavior, user posting, activity etc. in each block))
(ii) recording, in a general database, blocks- comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (Par. (0027-0028 and 0037-0039); recording blocks in database of blockchain ), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216; organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph (blockchain with subgraph of 214 and 216 of graph and model 200)) (Par. (0018); blocks- comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain (sub-tree with metadata stored in each block and each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0018); whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (mapping with blockchain model and particular branch and sub-tree), (Figure 2; whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (preset model with graphs of blocks)), (Examiner note: on page 12 lines 5-20 the specification describe the data model and subgraphs to be defined as shown on Figures 2A-2B therefore the subgraphs and data model will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.)
wherein the graph is progressively enriched over time and extended with new encrypted blocks corresponding to newly collected personal data. (Par. (0066) appending new blocks to blockchain branch), (Par. (0054-0056); new branch of history blockchain that allows blocks representing future online transaction and personal data of user to be appended in blockchain), (Par. (0027 and 0033); each block with timestamp to track history with trends and purchases))
Innes does not explicitly teach - obtaining a symmetric encryption key associated with a profile of the user; (i) encrypting said personal data with the symmetric encryption key of the user; and wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Haldar teaches - obtaining a symmetric encryption key associated with a profile of the user; (Par. (0089 and 0092-0093); received symmetric key by node with token corresponding to profile information)), (Par. (0052 and 0083-0084); receiving public key and encryption keys corresponding to symmetric key of node))
(i) encrypting said personal data with the symmetric encryption key of the user; and (Par. (0047); encrypting packet with confidential information of user with symmetric key))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes to incorporate the teaching of Haldar to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of securely protecting personal and confidential data of users by using encryption keys to prevent tampering and promote effective sharing within nodes of a system without risk. (Haldar Par. (0001-0004))
Innes and Haldar do not explicitly wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Acharya teaches wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, (Col. 2 lines 55-67 and Col. 3 line 1-20); root block (genesis block) is anchored with dynamic non-fungible token (genesis block holds model hash that includes the value of NFT)), (Col. 3 lines 55-67 and Col. 4 line 1-20; a root block of said sub-graph (blockchain with subgraph that is created))
wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and (Col. 11 lines 19-50; dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash (NFT comprises artefacts hash values and one or more artefacts are associated with users)), (Col. 7 lines 18-35; NFT as model hash associated with AI models and Individual publisher)), (Col. 6 lines 16-20 and Col. 3 lines 5-25; associated with the user (model hash and NFT corresponding to AI model with individual and publisher))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes and Haldar to incorporate the teaching of Acharya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of hardening security demands with data models and AI to create effective testing and high performances in network. (Acharya Col. 1 lines 45-67)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, wherein said blockchain is a distributed register within a peer network, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain), (Par. (0004-0006); said blockchain is a distributed register within a peer network (nodes in distributed blockchain database))
said terminal being a peer of said network configured to store locally at least one part of said sub- graph, and said blocks being stored in a local database of said terminal. (Par. (0004-0006 and Figure 1 labels 115, 125; terminal being a peer of said network (nodes in blockchain and users 115, 125)), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216; store locally at least one part of said sub- graph, and said blocks being stored in a local database (blockchain with subgraph of 214 and 216 of graph and model 200)), (Par. (0036-0039); store locally at least one part of said sub- graph, and said blocks being stored in a local database (storing by nodes of blockchain data and collections of transactions with shaded and unshaded block of subgraphs representing stored chain of blocks))
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, wherein said data model defines how branches of said sub-graph comprise blocks (Figure 2 labels 214, 216 and Par. (0036-0039 and 0042); data model with branches of shaded and unshaded transactions of blocks), (Par. (0018, 0021 and 0042); branches of blockchain with blocks))
whereof the personal encrypted data correspond to timestamped geolocation data of said terminal during detected displacement of said terminal. (Par. (0018); the personal encrypted data (each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0027); each block with timestamp), (Par. (0040-0042); each block with location and activity)), (Par. (0059); geolocation data of said terminal during detected displacement of said terminal (location field of each block includes another location associated with user and online transaction))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 3, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
wherein said data model defines how blocks of the personal encrypted data correspond to digital activity of the terminal on a given date or to data received from a third party on a given date is attached in said sub-graph to a block (Par. (0020 and 0033); data stored on blockchain corresponding to online activity and activity at location and time), (Par. (0018); personal encrypted data (each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216, and Par. (0036-0039); each block with data includes online activity of transaction is stored in subgraph model 200 with subgraphs 214 and 216))
whereof the personal encrypted data correspond to geolocation data of said terminal timestamped on said given date. (Par. (0018); the personal encrypted data (each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0027); each block with timestamp), (Par. (0040-0042); each block with location and activity)), , (Par. (0033); on said given date, classified location and time of transaction stored in blockchain))
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the constitution process of a history of personal data according to claim 1, comprising (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
US 20230073859 Matthews
generating at least one second dynamic non-fungible token for said user and associating a sub-graph of said sub-graph with a second dynamic non-fungible token. (Par. (0016); generating one or more NFT for user digital wallet)), (Par. (0076); second NFT (NFT 406 and 504 and location of graph representing NFT 406 over time))
In regards to Claim 9, Innes teaches a terminal comprising a processor configured to perform: (Par. (0004); node and processor))
- collecting personal data of the user; and - throughout the collection of said personal data of the user: (Par. (0018-0020 and 0027-0028); history of social media and collecting of user personal data in form of online transaction in blocks, data stored corresponding to behavior, user posting, activity etc. in each block))
(ii) recording, in a general database, blocks comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model; (Par. (0027-0028 and 0037-0039); recording blocks in database of blockchain ), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216; organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph (blockchain with subgraph of 214 and 216 of graph and model 200)) (Par. (0018); blocks- comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain (sub-tree with metadata stored in each block and each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0018); whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (mapping with blockchain model and particular branch and sub-tree), (Figure 2; whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (preset model with graphs of blocks)), (Examiner note: on page 12 lines 5-20 the specification describe the data model and subgraphs to be defined as shown on Figures 2A-2B therefore the subgraphs and data model will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.)
wherein the graph is progressively enriched over time and extended with new encrypted blocks corresponding to newly collected personal data. (Par. (0066) appending new blocks to blockchain branch), (Par. (0054-0056); new branch of history blockchain that allows blocks representing future online transaction and personal data of user to be appended in blockchain), (Par. (0027 and 0033); each block with timestamp to track history with trends and purchases))
Innes does not explicitly teach - obtaining a symmetric encryption key associated with a profile of the user; (i) encrypting of the personal data with the symmetric encryption key of the user; and wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Haldar teaches - obtaining a symmetric encryption key associated with a profile of the user; (Par. (0089 and 0092-0093); received symmetric key by node with token corresponding to profile information)), (Par. (0052 and 0083-0084); receiving public key and encryption keys corresponding to symmetric key of node))
(i) encrypting of the personal data with the symmetric encryption key of the user; and (Par. (0047); encrypting packet with confidential information of user with symmetric key))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes to incorporate the teaching of Haldar to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of securely protecting personal and confidential data of users by using encryption keys to prevent tampering and promote effective sharing within nodes of a system without risk. (Haldar Par. (0001-0004))
Innes and Haldar do not explicitly wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Acharya teaches wherein a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, (Col. 2 lines 55-67 and Col. 3 line 1-20); root block (genesis block) is anchored with dynamic non-fungible token (genesis block holds model hash that includes the value of NFT)), (Col. 3 lines 55-67 and Col. 4 line 1-20; a root block of said sub-graph (blockchain with subgraph that is created))
wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and (Col. 11 lines 19-50; dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash (NFT comprises artefacts hash values and one or more artefacts are associated with users)), (Col. 7 lines 18-35; NFT as model hash associated with AI models and Individual publisher)), (Col. 6 lines 16-20 and Col. 3 lines 5-25; associated with the user (model hash and NFT corresponding to AI model with individual and publisher))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes and Haldar to incorporate the teaching of Acharya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of hardening security demands with data models and AI to create effective testing and high performances in network. (Acharya Col. 1 lines 45-67)
In regards to Claim 11, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches a computer program comprising instructions for the execution of a process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1 when said program is run by a computer. (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain), (Par. (0006 and 0023); computer program instructions corresponding to computer))
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
wherein the graph being organized according to the preset data model into branches corresponding to respective personal-data streams or activities. (Figure 2 labels 214, 216 and Par. (0036-0039 and 0042); the graph being organized according to the preset data model into branches (data model with branches of shaded and unshaded transactions of blocks), (Par. (0018, 0021 and 0042); branches of blockchain with blocks)), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216, and Par. (0036-0039); corresponding to activities (each block with data includes online activity of transaction is stored in subgraph model 200 with subgraphs 214 and 216))
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089, hereinafter referred to as “Innes”) further in view of Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171, hereinafter referred to as “Acharya”)
In regards to Claim 7, Innes teaches a management process, executed by a server for management of personal data of a plurality of users, (Par. (0042); managing corresponding to blockchain database), (Par. (0022); plurality of users))
the management process comprising the management of a general database in which blocks are recorded, each block comprising said personal encrypted data of a said user, said blocks comprising the personal encrypted data of the same user being organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of the same general graph whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (Par. (0027-0028 and 0037-0039); recording blocks in database of blockchain ), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216; organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph (blockchain with subgraph of 214 and 216 of graph and model 200)) (Par. (0018); blocks- comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain (sub-tree with metadata stored in each block and each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0018); whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (mapping with blockchain model and particular branch and sub-tree), (Figure 2; whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (preset model with graphs of blocks)), (Examiner note: on page 12 lines 5-20 the specification describe the data model and subgraphs to be defined as shown on Figures 2A-2B therefore the subgraphs and data model will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.)
wherein the graph is progressively enriched over time and extended with new encrypted blocks corresponding to newly collected personal data. (Par. (0066) appending new blocks to blockchain branch), (Par. (0054-0056); new branch of history blockchain that allows blocks representing future online transaction and personal data of user to be appended in blockchain), (Par. (0027 and 0033); each block with timestamp to track history with trends and purchases))
Innes does not explicitly teach a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Acharya teaches a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, (Col. 2 lines 55-67 and Col. 3 line 1-20); root block (genesis block) is anchored with dynamic non-fungible token (genesis block holds model hash that includes the value of NFT)), (Col. 3 lines 55-67 and Col. 4 line 1-20; a root block of said sub-graph (blockchain with subgraph that is created))
wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and (Col. 11 lines 19-50; dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash (NFT comprises artefacts hash values and one or more artefacts are associated with users)), (Col. 7 lines 18-35; NFT as model hash associated with AI models and Individual publisher)), (Col. 6 lines 16-20 and Col. 3 lines 5-25; associated with the user (model hash and NFT corresponding to AI model with individual and publisher))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes to incorporate the teaching of Acharya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of hardening security demands with data models and AI to create effective testing and high performances in network. (Acharya Col. 1 lines 45-67)
In regards to Claim 10, Innes teaches a server for management of personal data of a plurality of users, (Par. (0083); server)), (Par. (0042); managing corresponding to blockchain database), (Par. (0022); plurality of users)), (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain),
the server comprising a processor configured to manage a general database in which blocks are recorded, (Par. (0004 and 0083); server and processor), (Par. (0017-0018); blockchain with recorded blocks in database))
each block comprising said personal encrypted data of a said user, said blocks comprising the personal encrypted data of the same user being organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of the same general graph whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (Par. (0027-0028 and 0037-0039); recording blocks in database of blockchain ), (Figure 2 labels 214, 216; organized according to a blockchain constituting a sub-graph of a general graph (blockchain with subgraph of 214 and 216 of graph and model 200)) (Par. (0018); blocks- comprising said encrypted data, said blocks being organized according to a blockchain (sub-tree with metadata stored in each block and each block is encrypted within blockchain)), (Par. (0018); whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (mapping with blockchain model and particular branch and sub-tree), (Figure 2; whereof a topology is defined by a preset data model, (preset model with graphs of blocks)), (Examiner note: on page 12 lines 5-20 the specification describe the data model and subgraphs to be defined as shown on Figures 2A-2B therefore the subgraphs and data model will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.)
wherein the graph is progressively enriched over time and extended with new encrypted blocks corresponding to newly collected personal data. (Par. (0066) appending new blocks to blockchain branch), (Par. (0054-0056); new branch of history blockchain that allows blocks representing future online transaction and personal data of user to be appended in blockchain), (Par. (0027 and 0033); each block with timestamp to track history with trends and purchases))
Innes does not explicitly teach a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and
Wherein Acharya teaches a root block of said sub-graph is anchored to a dynamic non-fungible token, (Col. 2 lines 55-67 and Col. 3 line 1-20); root block (genesis block) is anchored with dynamic non-fungible token (genesis block holds model hash that includes the value of NFT)), (Col. 3 lines 55-67 and Col. 4 line 1-20; a root block of said sub-graph (blockchain with subgraph that is created))
wherein the dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash associated with the user, and (Col. 11 lines 19-50; dynamic non-fungible token comprises an output hash (NFT comprises artefacts hash values and one or more artefacts are associated with users)), (Col. 7 lines 18-35; NFT as model hash associated with AI models and Individual publisher)), (Col. 6 lines 16-20 and Col. 3 lines 5-25; associated with the user (model hash and NFT corresponding to AI model with individual and publisher))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes to incorporate the teaching of Acharya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and encryption of personal data, with the motivation of hardening security demands with data models and AI to create effective testing and high performances in network. (Acharya Col. 1 lines 45-67)
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Innes and Acharya teach the process of claim 7, Innes further teaches the computer program comprising instructions for the execution of a process for management of personal data of a plurality of users according to claim 7 when said program is run by a computer. (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain), (Par. (0006 and 0023); computer program instructions corresponding to computer))
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089, hereinafter referred to as “Innes”), Haldar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200344062, hereinafter referred to as “Haldar”) and Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171, hereinafter referred to as “Acharya”) further in view of Papanikolas et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097508, hereinafter referred to as “Papanikolas”)
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
Innes, Haldar and Acharya do not explicitly teach wherein a sub-graph of said graph being associated with a second dynamic non-fungible token so that said sub-graph can be isolated.
Wherein Papanikolas teaches wherein a sub-graph of said graph being associated with a second dynamic non-fungible token so that said sub-graph can be isolated. (Par. (0057-0058); a sub-graph of said graph (binary tree structure of Fenwick tree) associated with a second dynamic non-fungible token (tree structure corresponding to NFT)), (Par. (0023 and 0057); second dynamic non-fungible tokens (number of non-fungible tokens corresponding to tree structure)), (Par. (0069-0072); so that said sub-graph can be isolated (splitting the NFT batches corresponding to tree structure and updating length), (Figure 4 labels “from” and “to”; so that said sub-graph can be isolated. (tree structure with “from” and “two” isolated and split into two batches))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes, Haldar and Acharya to incorporate the teaching of Papanikolas to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of NFT and blockchain technologies and subgraphs with exchanging of keys, with the motivation of improving the tracking of NFT in blockchains with multiple NFT over time. (Papanikolas Par. (0022))
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089, hereinafter referred to as “Innes”), Haldar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200344062, hereinafter referred to as “Haldar”) and Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171, hereinafter referred to as “Acharya”) further in view of Konda et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200127833, hereinafter referred to as “Konda”)
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
Innes, Haldar and Acharya do not explicitly teach wherein the dynamic non-fungible token points to an entry node of a graph representing a history of personal data of the user.
Wherein Konda teaches wherein the dynamic non-fungible token points to an entry node of a graph representing a history of personal data of the user. (Par. (0011-0012); dynamic non-fungible token points to an entry node of a graph (non-fungible token with first root node of hierarchal tree structure), (Par. (0019-0020); representing a history of personal data of the user. (personal and health related data in blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes, Haldar and Acharya to incorporate the teaching of Konda to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and subgraphs with exchanging of keys, with the motivation of providing privacy and security and preventing exposure on the distributed ledger network improving the tracking of NFT in blockchains with multiple NFT over time. (Konda Par. (0004))
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innes et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180359089, hereinafter referred to as “Innes”), Haldar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200344062, hereinafter referred to as “Haldar”) and Acharya et al. (U.S No. 11494171, hereinafter referred to as “Acharya”) further in view of Biernat et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190340269, hereinafter referred to as “Biernat”)
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Innes, Haldar and Acharya teach the process of claim 1, Innes further teaches the process for constitution of a history of personal data according to claim 1, (Par. (0027-0028); history of personal data of a user (history of users social media stored as blocks in blockchain)
Innes, Haldar and Acharya do not explicitly teach wherein each new block comprises, except for the root block, an output hash of each upstream block in the graph.
Wherein Biernat teaches wherein each new block comprises, except for the root block, an output hash of each upstream block in the graph. (Par. (0079); new block with output hash (previous hash), (Figure 5 label 506; except for the root block, (genesis block without output hash)), (Figure 5 labels 506, 504; upstream block in graph (graph with upward trend of blocks leading to “?” that all have hashes))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Innes, Haldar and Acharya to incorporate the teaching of Biernat to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and subgraphs with exchanging of keys, with the motivation of utilizing proof of work and a blockchain ledger to secure blocks and transactions and allow peers to accept data and mange without issues of hijacking or tampering. (Biernat Par. (0056))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent claims 5 and 8 and their respective dependent claims, are allowable over the prior art of record including Innes, Haldar and Acharya and the remaining references cited by the Examiner, since the prior art, taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious;
integrating in said sub-graph of a digital contract to which said user is party, said contract being encrypted by a public key of said terminal, a public key of at least one other party to the contract and a public key of a digital trust environment, said contract comprising at least: - the symmetric encryption key of the user encrypted with a public key of the digital trust environment; and - instructions able to be executed by said digital trust environment to:(i) decrypt at least some of said personal data of said user with said symmetric encryption key;(ii) verify that the non-fungible token associated with the root block of the sub- graph belongs to said user;(iii) analyse said deciphered personal details; and (iv) provide a result of said analysis to at least one party to the contract, as specified in claim 5.
said process comprising managing a set of instances of a digital trust environment, a said instance being configured to:- execute instructions defined in a digital contract for analysing some of said personal data of at least one user party to the contract, said contract comprising a symmetric encryption key of said at least one party to the contract encrypted with a public key of said instance of digital trust environment, said instance is configured to utilize said symmetric encryption key to decrypt said personal data, and said instance is configured to analyse said personal data; and - provide a result of said analysis to at least one party to the contract, as specified in claim 8.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palyutina; Karina (U.S Pub. No. 20210092613) “PROVISION OF LOCATION-SPECIFIC USER INFORMATION”. Considered this reference because it addressed user personal data with geolocation and time.
SULIBHAVI; MADHVESH (U.S Pub. No. 20230188600) “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED MANAGEMENT OF DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY (DLT) NETWORK FOR INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT)”. Considered this application because it relates to blockchain technologies and the use of subgraphs with persona data.
Long; Jieyi (U.S No. 11075891) “Non-fungible Token (NFT) Based Digital Rights Management In A Decentralized Data Delivery Network”. Considered this application because it addressed NFT’s with blockchain network and the encryption of personal data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights