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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDON et al (USPN 11,295,318) in view of AUERBACH et al (USPN 11,522,700) and PAYA et al (USPN 11,501,370).
Per claim 1, ANDON et al teach a method for securely distributing a plurality of digital assets via a digital activation layer implemented within an enterprise network, wherein the enterprise network is in communication with a third-party component, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request to transfer a digital asset from the enterprise network to the third-party component, wherein the third-party component is configured to run a third-party application (Abstract, col.3 line 20-col.4 line 48, col.5 lines 6-27, col.6 lines 11-65, col.12 lines 57-60—receiving from a user a request to transfer a digital asset to a third-party which includes a third-party sponsor host);
identifying one or more characteristics of the digital asset (col.6 lines 11-44, col.13 line 8-col.14 line 17, col.37 lines 45-51, col.38 line 48-col.39 line 3—identifying attributes and features of the digital assets);
identifying a type of the third-party application, wherein the type of the third-party application identifies a digital item for integration with the third-party application (col.3 lines 20-51, col.18 lines 18-34, col.22 line 65-col.23 line 61, col.26 line 56-col.27 line 13, col.33 lines 39-56—third-party integration service operating as an API on user device, identifying a genotype and phenotype expression of an object via the integrated software and type of digital asset);
converting the digital asset into the digital item based on the type of the third-party application and the one or more characteristics of the digital asset (col.7 lines 24-44, col.20 lines 37-64, col.22 lines 61-64, col.27 lines 24-55—processing the digital asset to produce virtual representation of the new asset, web server hosting GUI operable to translate data to visual image); and
importing the digital item into the third-party application, wherein the digital item is configured to adjust a digital appearance within the third-party application (col.2 lines 25-38, col.8 lines 52-57, col.13 lines 40-57, col.20 lines 37-64, col.23 lines 17-40—digital asset manipulation and posting to online marketplace, altering genotype and phenotype characteristics of the digital asset, importing into one or more digital platforms, visual expression of displayed digital object altered by user’s uses of the object used in a related retail app).
ANDON et al teach the claimed limitation, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach identifying “wherein the enterprise network implements a blockchain configured to store the digital asset; a digital item that is compatible for integration with the third-party application, receiving, from the third-party application, item interaction information; and updating the digital asset on the blockchain by associating the digital asset with the item interaction information”. However, AUERBACH et al teach obtaining data from web APIs are parsed to provide data compatible with the smart contract associated with the digital assets and formatting transaction data to be compatible with the digital wallet system (col.137 lines 21-36, col.174 lines 18-36, col.249 lines 37-45, col.252 lines 46-56) and converting a starting digital asset to one or more intermediate denominations (col.256 line 48-67, col.273 lines 23-43). PAYA et al teach utilizing a third party to monitor transaction activity at the first scripted address, the first user device and/or the digital asset exchange computer system, detecting published transactions associated with the address (col.245 line 56-col.46 line 31), notifying a third party computer system and/or an administrator associated with the digital asset exchange (col.88 lines 11-17 and 38-46, col.165 lines 59-65, col.277 line 53-col.278 line 6) and updating digital asset with respective user account association (col.41 lines 54-64, col.43 lines 27-31, col.89 lines 13-24, col.290 lines 44-53, col.293 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of ANDON et al with AUERBACH et al and PAYA et al for the purpose of identifying compatible digital items for integration in the third-party application, a blockchain configured to store the digital asset and updating the digital asset on the blockchain by associating the digital asset with the item interaction information; which is well-known in the art to ensure the stability of the system to employ data that is compatible with the format of the third-party and associating the digital asset with the user transaction activity.
Claims 9 and 17 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 1, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein the third-party component comprises a gamification component and the third-party application comprises a video game application (col.2 lines 25-38, col.13 lines 40-57, col.18 lines 18-34, col.26 lines 42-55—third-party comprises video game context and video game interface; PAYA et al: col.18 lines 30-44, col.19 lines 10-14—game component).
Claims 10 and 18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 2, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein the digital item is further configured to adjust one or more parameters of the video game application, and wherein the one or more parameters are associated with a video game capability of an avatar in the video game application (col.2 lines 39-62, col.13 lines 47-57, col.18 lines 18-34, col.26 lines 42-55, col.27 lines 24-39, col.37 liens 55-59—digital representation includes an avatar, altering and manipulating video game characters and attributes using the video game interface).
Claims 11 and 19 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 3, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein adjusting the digital appearance comprises adjusting one or more visual parameters of the avatar in the video game application (col.20 lines 37-64, col.26 lines 42-55, col.27 lines 24-39, col.37 lines 39-51—digital asset manipulation of attributes associated with attributes of digital representation used in video games).
Claims 12 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 1, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein the third-party component comprises a social media component and the third-party application comprises a social media application (col.17 line 66-col.18 line 17, col.21 lines 23-47—social media platform and implementation; AUERBACH et al: col.40 lines 1-7—social media blockchain system; PAYA et al: col.17 lines 50-56, col.299 lines 42-46—social media applications and blockchain).
Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 5, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein the social media component provides one or more images from the social media application, and wherein adjusting the digital appearance comprises displaying the digital item as an overlay in the one or more images (col.17 line 66-col.18 line 17, col.21 lines 23-47, col.23 line 41-col.24 line 12, col.24 lines 13-41, col.26 lines 27-41—social media platform and implementation, customizing, editing and altering attributes of digital assets; PAYA et al: col.17 lines 50-56, col.299 lines 42-46—social media applications and blockchain).
Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 1, ANDON et al further teach the method wherein the enterprise network comprises a distributed ledger, and wherein the digital asset is transferred from the enterprise network to the third-party component via the distributed ledger (col.16 line 58-col.17 line 14, col.34 line 59-col.35 line 7—digital asset transferred to third-party via distributed ledger; PAYA et al: col.2 lines 45-51v col.15 lines 7-37—digital asset is maintained on a distributed public transaction ledger maintained in the form of a blockchain network).
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, ANDON et al and AUERBACH et al with PAYA et al teach the method of claim 1, ANDON et al further teach the method further comprising: retrieving the adjusted digital appearance form the third-party application; and updating the digital asset based on the retrieved adjusted digital appearance (col.3 lines 20-51, col10 lines 5-14, col.23 line 41-col.24 line 12, col.24 lines 13-41, col.27 lines 40-55—third-party entity modifying digital asset attributes).
Claim 16 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
IV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0272681, USPN 11487850.
V. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
VI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights